As a junior, i do actually enjoy going back and forth with the AI discussing different ways to implement something and exploring alternatives.
More often than not, I'd have an architectural idea that I'm not that confident in. The process of talking with the LLM takes a long time but it helps me sharpen the initial approach or even come up with a new one depending on the requirements.
Be sure to explicitly ask for critiques or alternatives. In my experience the machine is really susceptible to a sort of anchoring effect.
I've noticed that too, once you get an initial implementation it seems to always find a way to argue for keeping that approach in the name of simplicity
Like "Let's stick with what we have, its simple and it works." or "That seems overkill, let's not over complicate things"
I've got to the point where sometimes I frame my question as if I disagree with it, just to allow the AI to "agree" with me and actually critique it.
"My team mate wants to X, but I feel like that might be a bad idea. What could go wrong?", etc.
In this vein, I have a system level memory for Claude to push back and give me direct feedback when possible. So far a success as it helps cut through the sycophancy.
[dead]
This is how I do it to and I’m an architect/senior dev. Keep it up!
As a senior, I do the same.
Yes agreed with you on this.
Same. My total agentic session time/effort is about 70/30 discussion vs code-gen. I've got 12 years experience.
This used to be called Pair Programming. And just letting you know, it’s not just juniors… we’re all do this :)
[dead]