This feels like a comment shot from the hip. You fundamentally misread my argument while proving my core point.
You crystallised the disconnect yourself: "with the help of Claude."
The article’s first line states: "LLMs are helpful." My stance is clear. I’m not anti-AI. When I wrote "I use Claude on a VERY short leash with a specific purpose" ... that is "with the help of Claude."
My experiment tested the opposite: "let Claude build it".
The 'telegram bot' is a fullstack app with non-trivial db schema, state management and 3rd party integration. Instead of dismissing it, show me a better alternative and explain why it’s superior.
You defend expertise in your domain (research synthesis), describing how you "constrained the robots" using your expertise to guide Claude. Yet you dismiss equivalent expertise in software engineering, reducing it to "$100k+ to write crappy JavaScript."
How did you "constrain" Claude without knowing what needed constraining, why it mattered and how to evaluate if the output was valid?
You crystallised the disconnect yourself: "with the help of Claude."
The article’s first line states: "LLMs are helpful." My stance is clear. I’m not anti-AI. When I wrote "I use Claude on a VERY short leash with a specific purpose" ... that is "with the help of Claude."
My experiment tested the opposite: "let Claude build it".
The 'telegram bot' is a fullstack app with non-trivial db schema, state management and 3rd party integration. Instead of dismissing it, show me a better alternative and explain why it’s superior.
You defend expertise in your domain (research synthesis), describing how you "constrained the robots" using your expertise to guide Claude. Yet you dismiss equivalent expertise in software engineering, reducing it to "$100k+ to write crappy JavaScript."
How did you "constrain" Claude without knowing what needed constraining, why it mattered and how to evaluate if the output was valid?
That is expertise. The salary is a symptom of it.