238

...and I still don't get it. I paid for a month of Pro to try it out, and it is consistently and confidently producing subtly broken junk. I had tried doing this before in the past, but gave up because it didn't work well. I thought that maybe this time it would be far along enough to be useful.

The task was relatively simple, and it involved doing some 3d math. The solutions it generated were almost write every time, but critically broken in subtle ways, and any attempt to fix the problems would either introduce new bugs, or regress with old bugs.

I spent nearly the whole day yesterday going back and forth with it, and felt like I was in a mental fog. It wasn't until I had a full night's sleep and reviewed the chat log this morning until I realized how much I was going in circles. I tried prompting a bit more today, but stopped when it kept doing the same crap.

The worst part of this is that, through out all of this, Claude was confidently responding. When I said there was a bug, it would "fix" the bug, and provide a confident explanation of what was wrong... Except it was clearly bullshit because it didn't work.

I still want to keep an open mind. Is anyone having success with these tools? Is there a special way to prompt it? Would I get better results during certain hours of the day?

For reference, I used Opus 4.6 Extended.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] shaggy@beehaw.org 2 points 14 hours ago

This is our new bottleneck too. Developers roles are shifting to spec writers and code reviewers more and more. I don't think I'd call this wasted effort though (unless the code produced is worse than what developers would have produced otherwise). I'd think of it as a good problem to have.

We're doing several things to alleviate this, and I'm genuinely curious how other teams are handling this too.

  • We have Claude running code reviews on our PRs too ๐Ÿ˜„. In our department, a PR isn't expected to be reviewed by a dev until the author has addressed or reviewed and dismissed all of the issues Claude has brought up.
  • There is pressure for developers on our team to become better reviewers. I think this is good, because reviewing code is a more valuable skill to prospective employers than writing it is anyway.
[-] f3nyx@lemmy.ml 1 points 13 hours ago

thanks for the response. for what its worth, most people I ask this question to are attempting some form of your first bulletpoint. I think we're on the right track there, it only makes sense.

speaking for myself, your second point is the silver lining of all this, to me. ive never had this kind of pressure before, but I hope that its the kind of pressure that makes me a better dev instead of burning me out.

cheers!

this post was submitted on 11 Apr 2026
238 points (90.5% liked)

Programming

26482 readers
278 users here now

Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!

Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.

Hope you enjoy the instance!

Rules

Rules

  • Follow the programming.dev instance rules
  • Keep content related to programming in some way
  • If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos

Wormhole

Follow the wormhole through a path of communities !webdev@programming.dev



founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS