1. You think you have something following typical best practices. You have no way to verify that without taking the time to understand the problem and solution yourself.
2. If you’d done 1, you’d have the knowledge yourself next time the problem came up and could either write it yourself or skip the verifications step.
I’m not saying there aren’t problems out there where the problem is hard to solve but easy to verify. And for those use cases LLMs are terrific.
But many problems have the inverse property. And many problems that look like the first type are actually the second.
LLMs are also shockingly good at generating solutions that look plausible, independent of correctness or suitability, so it’s almost always harder to do the verification step than it seems.
The control plane is already operational and does what I need. Copying public designs solved a few problems I didn't even know I had (awkward command and control UX) and seems strictly superior to what I had before. I could have taken a lot longer on this - probably at least a week, to "deeply understand the problem and solution". But it's unclear what exactly that would have bought me. If I run into further issues I will just solve them at that time.
So what is the issue exactly? This pattern just seems like a looser form of using a library versus building from scratch.
2. If you’d done 1, you’d have the knowledge yourself next time the problem came up and could either write it yourself or skip the verifications step.
I’m not saying there aren’t problems out there where the problem is hard to solve but easy to verify. And for those use cases LLMs are terrific.
But many problems have the inverse property. And many problems that look like the first type are actually the second.
LLMs are also shockingly good at generating solutions that look plausible, independent of correctness or suitability, so it’s almost always harder to do the verification step than it seems.