945
Peer reviewing is torture now
(lemmy.nz)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 11 Sep 2026
945 points (98.7% liked)
Programmer Humor
33210 readers
585 users here now
Welcome to Programmer Humor!
This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!
For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.
Rules
- Keep content in english
- No advertisements
- Posts must be related to programming or programmer topics
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
See, that's the issue. People letting it "drive itself" get worse results. You should be the one holding the standards and guiding the model, otherwise you will be frustrated.
Yeah, but it's designed, purposefully, to trick people into believing you can just let it do whatever. And people do. Hense the whole problem we're talking about.
I saw this advice too, the problem with being very detailed is a question why not use a less ambiguous languages to do it?
Why not write the explanation in language like Python. Why should I write it in English when I can say the same thing in Python and it is actually easier to do for me.
This kind of specification applies to the agent behavior or the agent behavior in a project. You don't write it on every conversation, you write/review it once for the project or agent and let the harness include it on every conversation. You can even ask the agent to scan the codebase and pull desirable patterns out of it for future sessions.
The entire point of using an agent is to not have to write everything yourself, so that when you write "implement feature X", the feature gets implemented in a way that makes sense in that project, is reviewed, refactored, and tested by agents, and it's good enough to bring in a human reviewer.