Gemini feels like a good kind and experienced teacher. I go there for looking up things like definitions or small educational sessions. The UI feels better for that type of work.
Claude feels like a good smart engineer, feels a bit too dry and serious for when you wanna do simple learnings.
It takes a while to build the confidence, but there's no future where you're manually reviewing every line of agent code. Not much acceleration in that. You need adversarial agent reviews, you need automated testing, and maybe you spot check. That's it. From prompt to production!
We need a graph for abandoned side projects since AI coding.
When a new idea is just a prompt away to prototype I find myself chasing multiple ideas that I end up throwing away.
Having diligence to find an idea to work on for the long term is getting really hard.
A lot of habits die before getting born, took me 3 decades to learn:
1. Routine: do it every day, even for 5 minutes
2. Quantity: increase the volume as days pass and your time allows
3. Quality: refine your techniques and work on quality wh
The only thing between an agent and a destructive or outward git command is the auto-mode's classifier, and it is inconsistent!
My Opus 5.5 today ran the same 'git restore' twice: the first time the classifier blocked it, then I asked for a retry and this time went through!
How silly is it to ask models to compare themselves?
1- Give Opus 5 and Opus 5.5 the same prompt for the same task ( mine was to review a PR and categorize the changes into three levels with reasoning.)
2- Exchange their answers to review each other's output with fairness
3- Ask them to identify the differences
4- Ask them to sort the differences by importance
5- Ask them to grade each other's work
This is what they gave in my case:
Both Opus5 and Opus5.5 gave better scores to Opus5.5!
Opus 5 gave itself a 6 and Opus 5.5 an 8. Opus 5.5 gave itself a 7 and
Opus 5 a 6.5.
It's funny how each model is humbling, scoring itself