> I think something people really misunderstand about these tools is that for them to be useful outside of very general, basic contexts, you have to already know the problem you want to solve, and the gist of how to solve it - and then you have to provide that as context to the LLM.
Politely need to disagree with this.
Quick example. I'm wrapping up a project where I built an options back-tester from scratch.
The thing is, before starting this, I had zero experience or knowledge with:
1. Python (knew it was a language, but that's it)
2. Financial microstructure (couldn't have told you what an option was - let alone puts/calls/greeks/etc)
3. Docker, PostgreSQL, git, etc.
4. Cursor/IDE/CLIs
5. SWE principles/practices
This project used or touched every single one of these.
There were countless (majority?) of situations where I didn't know how to define the problem or how to articulate the solution.
It came down to interrogating AI at multiple levels (using multiple models at times).
Politely need to disagree with this.
Quick example. I'm wrapping up a project where I built an options back-tester from scratch.
The thing is, before starting this, I had zero experience or knowledge with:
1. Python (knew it was a language, but that's it)
2. Financial microstructure (couldn't have told you what an option was - let alone puts/calls/greeks/etc)
3. Docker, PostgreSQL, git, etc.
4. Cursor/IDE/CLIs
5. SWE principles/practices
This project used or touched every single one of these.
There were countless (majority?) of situations where I didn't know how to define the problem or how to articulate the solution.
It came down to interrogating AI at multiple levels (using multiple models at times).