> It’s just incapable of the thing that makes a real architect valuable: saying “no.”
I have had Claude many times tell me "not really, here's a better way" when asked "hey Claude, is this a good idea?". Granted, Claude would just do it if I just asked it to just do it, but that's by design. LLMs, at least today, are capable of pushing back, if suitably prompted.
This article is spot on. I'm feeling the exact same way watching the industry aggressively promote the idea that it's safe to deploy unverified code just because an AI wrote the tests.
We are playing with fire. If we keep treating "I don't read the code I ship" as a feature rather than a liability, it's going to cause a massive, real-world disaster. The resulting regulation will be so heavy that software engineering will end up needing a Bar Council or Medical Board just to ship a basic feature. We're cheering for a trend that is going to regulate us into a corner.
That's an incredibly thorough analysis. And if we wanted to be even more picky: why on earth would we want to form so many opinions about the world using a single LLM model?
5 comments
[ 2.0 ms ] story [ 18.9 ms ] threadI have had Claude many times tell me "not really, here's a better way" when asked "hey Claude, is this a good idea?". Granted, Claude would just do it if I just asked it to just do it, but that's by design. LLMs, at least today, are capable of pushing back, if suitably prompted.
We are playing with fire. If we keep treating "I don't read the code I ship" as a feature rather than a liability, it's going to cause a massive, real-world disaster. The resulting regulation will be so heavy that software engineering will end up needing a Bar Council or Medical Board just to ship a basic feature. We're cheering for a trend that is going to regulate us into a corner.
It shows, man. You even had it write this article for you.