> You can do that interactively with LLMs. Instead of aiming for a finished product you ask a question, then refine your understanding with more questions.

Yeah, I regularly spend a lot of time with Claude fleshing out ideas and scoping out features. I'm behind the times and just use the chat interface rather than Claude Code, so perhaps there are controls I'm not aware of, but there can't be any that make it correctly understand an under-specified idea, or even correctly understand an adequately specified idea.

For example, I've been playing around building a side-project that involves building out a safety-weighted graph to support generating safer bike routes. I was recently working on integrating traffic control devices (represented on OpenStreetMaps nodes) into the model where I calculate weights for my graph (I essentially join the penalty for the traffic control device onto the destination end of an edge) and Claude kept wanting to average that penalty by the length of the edge (as that makes sense for some other factors in my model like crashes, surface material, max speed, etc), but doesn't make sense for traffic control signals at intersections (as the length of an edge shouldn't change the risk a cyclist experiences going through an intersection). If I didn't have a well-developed ability to closely parse words to ideas, I could have very easily just taken the working model Claude generated and built more on top of it, setting up a dangerous situation where the routing algo would promote routes running a user through more intersections (which are the most dangerous place for cyclists).

I hope a comparable proportion of kids coming up today will spend the time and energy to understand the ideas behind the text and the code, but I really doubt 18-year old me would have had that wisdom. I would have been underspecifying what I wanted out of a lack of prerequisite knowledge, receiving slop, and either promptly getting lost in debugging hell or more likely the worse case of erroneously believing the slop satisfied the brief.

> There are lines between writing as a persuasive medium, writing as a didactic medium for teaching, writing as a creative/poetic medium, writing as the process of creation of marketable products, writing as a shared summary of specialist niche knowledge, and writing as an aid to personal comprehension. > Those are fundamentally different activities, They happen to use the same medium and there are some overlapping areas. But they're essentially different activities with different requirements and different processes.

In all of those areas, if you take away the human who can develop value-creating ideas into an accurate and high-fidelity written representation, you will just get slop. Developing ideas and representing them in words is the skill. There is no substitute.