In October I started working on a new idea.
It was fueled by the emotional sparks I felt using Midjourney. The sparks combined with the domain I care about the most: social creative gaming.
The idea was too big. Like any good bootstrapper I tried to shrink it.
I failed.
@thekitze My daughter and I played BoTW together when she was four. We show them lots of movies and they are all avid gamers.
We just don’t allow unlimited screen time. just put a simple boundary on it.
She is now 12 and won 1st place in a creative writing competition. Kids will be fine.
@andrewchen /desire
Handles the difficult step of transforming my vague wishes and aspirations into structured, verifiable, continuous goals that get me there
@andrewchen Only minor review of important parts if it’s touching high risk areas. More important is making sure the AI knows what I want before it writes code, and establishing a clear verification step. There is just absolutely no way we are reviewing all AI code at this pace.
@garrytan So true. I think a highly connected idea is Gall’s Law: “A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that worked”
It’s another danger right now with LLMs - so tempting to architect some complicated stuff and just build it all immediately.
@sagar_batchu@boristane Love this. I literally did this today. Claude one-shotted a massive implementation for me after I handed it only the types and api boundaries.
claude code: I finished the feature you asked me to build. All tests are passing. Would you like me to commit these changes?
me: Please review your changes to make sure there are no mistakes.
cc: [working] … I found 5 mistakes and fixed them. All tests are passing. Ready to commit.
me: Please review your changes to make sure there are no mistakes.
cc: [working] … I found 3 mistakes and fixed 2. The third was pre-existing and unrelated to my changes. Ready to commit.
me: Fix the “pre-existing” mistake.
cc: [working] … I fixed the pre-existing mistake. Ready to commit.
me: Please review your changes to make sure there are no mistakes.
cc: [working] … No mistakes found. There is one failing test that was pre-existing, unrelated to my changes. Would you like me to commit these changes?
me: Fix the failing test.
cc: [compacting] … [working] … All tests are passing. Ready to commit.
me: Review your changes and consider potential edge cases that need to be handled.
cc: [working] … I found 2 edge cases that were not being handled. Both are now handled properly. Ready to commit.
me: Do those edge cases have tests?
cc: [working] … Both edge cases now have test coverage. Would you like me to commit these changes?
me: Yes.
my current favorite trick for reducing "cognitive debt" (h/t @simonw) is to ask the LLM to write two versions of the plan:
1. The version for it (highly technical and detailed)
2. The version for me (an entertaining essay designed to build my intuition)
Works great