Part of the problem: you get given a complete document to review after it's been fully baked.
I'm pushing the need for basic engineering principles across whole organisations.
You wouldn't give an engineer 1000 lines of code to review without the original spec of what you're trying to achieve for context (at a minimum, ideally the reviewer was in the room when the work was introduced, and has full context).
So, these docs, they're given as an all or nothing.
Do you push back on the 39th metric that is defined to the utmost detail? Or just resign yourself to the fact that it is what it is?
A one (6 is the goto if we're talking Amazon?!) pager.. "this is what I am proposing" at least gives the skeleton of the idea to push back at the general shape of the idea, refine it, before all the emotional investment of your precious report being complete.
Y'know.. the traditional product running through the spec in a SCRUM* environment.. the engineers doing proper code reviews..
So many people get buried in tech debt due to constantly choosing "let's be productive now and iterate later". Then later never comes.
This was already proof that, when a company is given the chance of getting a reward now and putting in the effort later, they will take the reward and postpone the effort indefinitely.
AI now offers "generate now, review later". Fill in the pattern.
We're cooked and it's not due to AI, it's due to the fundamentals of an economy and society that only sees the short term.
I've had this situation and basically just had to throw out stuff that was written because its completely terrible/wrong. Either start again or just give up.
Not only do you need to spec everything to the right level of detail (at which point an LLM can likely make a good go of it), but a lot of the outsourced teams don't build in anywhere near the same way as those internally, and the difference in the level and speed of delivery is absolute.
Not to mention with everything changing so quickly, why would I be spending time and money training up someone else's staff to be keeping up with the cutting edge?
You'll hear Charlie McMahon going at it with continuous circular breathing for five to eight minutes or so on the early Gondwanaland albums (along with sliding length didgeridoo effects and 'singing' down tube).
I think Opus 4.6 at its peak was the "how can anyone not get that this is good" for me.
Then the nerf, and the massive uplift in tokens for 4.7, a model which I find lazy and prone to hallucinate.
It's probably time to try GPT5.5. Like many I'm pretty heavily invested in the anthropic ecosystem at this point, which I suppose gives another strong reason to make the switch.
The openclaw ban pushed me over to 5.5 for some daily usage. I feel like Opus and 5.5 are good at very different things. 5.5 can be too literal, and it does not have as much of a ‘creative’ bent whether that’s toward design, UI/UX, interpreting vague instructions, etc. So, in that way, Opus had sort of spoiled me.
On the other hand, this year I’ve been in the habit of using codex as a bug finder / audit layer, where it shines, and I can tell you, Opus makes a lot of mistakes, and as we all know struggles with laziness — and has gotten good at encoding that laziness into the codebase (// Per instructions, pass this test by default) where it can live for a long time. So, Opus had spoiled me, but more with its ability to sketch holistically than its ability to put out perfect codebases.
Upshot - it was good to switch horses for a while, as you mention. Slightly different skill sets there. And I still reach for claude especially for initial design. But right now the daily driver is 5.5 / xhigh fast mode, and it’s very capable.
I only used Claude first time in April, previously only ChatGPT and Gemini. And I struggle to see what the hype is all about - yes it seems a tiny bit smarter than the pack, but on the 20$ subscription it runs out of tokens in 5-20 minutes, and then you need to wait 3-4h.
ChatGPT 5.5 seems capable, although a bit stingy with “thinking” compared to earlier models, and I never run into session limits.
I was a dedicated Claude user but in March/April I started using GPT5.5 on a new project that Claude had tried and failed to execute successfully. GPT knocked it out of the park, and was able to do it within my subscription allocation of tokens. I'd recommend giving it a go at least. Something like OpenClaude can let you use the Claude tools you're used to
It's kind of touched on elsewhere, but when phones became computers.
Suddenly it's an always on resource that needs value extracting.
It's even worse nowadays, post COVID, with the insane hustle culture. I mean, yeah, these strats worked when it was the odd person doing it. But now.. nah thanks, you're trying to play on my basic human nature.
You want fun? Build shit. Stop being precious about vibe coding, it's a spectrum, nothing is too complex now.. learn from the LLM if you don't want to just let it run with the code.
Shit.. it's fun to finally build out a good portion of the never ending ideas list (and to realise half of those ideas just aren't worth the effort)
25 years ago, we were still trying to milk as much as possible out of autoexec.bat and config.sys.. maybe we'd moved on slightly, but we were definitely still trying to get the damn 56k modem to give us the best ping possible.
All this to say.. it was fun because it wasn't easy. We were learning.
Facades and stranglers are massively useful patterns, and help explain concepts to the layman.
Personally I've never been patterns over everything, so I'm not going to now knee jerk and say no patterns ever.
There's a time and a place for everything.
edit Fuck. A reread on that and I sound like AI. Updated
reply