> Or, do you tell it the basic functionality you want, test it out, then add feature after feature that you want, sometimes dropping them and sometimes adding new ones that you thought of as your worked

the problem with this is long term maintainability. it works - and the engineer understands how it works - but a) the AI does not prioritize cleanup/organization/naming, and b) there's a blind spot/boiling frog type of phenomenon that can prevent the engineer from spotting the growing problem. the codebase becomes recognizable only to them. the engineer sees all features working, all bugs fixed, 90% test coverage, and submits it for a PR.

the engineer tasked with reviewing the PR will treat it as slop.

> How's that not criminal

Well, a) it's a hobby, and b) this is still a free country/free society.

at the top there's Neil Pert, then a huge gap, then anyone else.

i think theres a paradox here. intelligence needs a judge - if nothing verifies that the optimal outcome was chosen, it's too easy for the intelligence to fall into biased decisions