> To build good software with AI, you still have to understand software.
> You need to know what you’re actually asking for, how to judge what comes back, and when the machine is just confidently serving you charcoal.
It's surprising to me this even needs to be written down. Like, obviously still use your brain and think about what the computer is doing. Did you guys think that LLMs were magic?
I mean you're not wrong, but consider that a lot of high-level developers treat low-level details such as CPU architecture, memory virtualization, and even garbage collection as essentially magic. That's not the same thing as LLMs because those things I listed are carefully crafted to be reliable abstractions, but I can understand the impetus to want to think of LLMs in a similar way.
> You need to know what you’re actually asking for, how to judge what comes back, and when the machine is just confidently serving you charcoal.
It's surprising to me this even needs to be written down. Like, obviously still use your brain and think about what the computer is doing. Did you guys think that LLMs were magic?