I keep hearing “Claude creates subtle bugs”, but how is that different than people engineers? I’ve never worked in a bug free codebase
But now with Claude, the mental model of how your code works is not in your head, but resides behind a chain of reasoning from Claude Code that you are not privy too. When something breaks, you either have to spend much longer trying to piece together what your agent has made, or to continue throwing Claude at and hope it doesn't spiral into more subtle bugs.
An example I have of this is when I asked Claude to copy a some functionality from a front-end application to a back-end application. It got all of the function signatures right but then hallucinated the contents of the functions. Part of this functionality included a look up map for some values. The new version had entirely hallucinated keys and values, but the values sounded correct if you didn't compare with the original. A human would have literally copied the original lookup map.
There is no way this is true. People make fewer bugs with time and guidance, but no human makes zero bugs. Also, bugs are not planned; it's always easy to in hindsight say "A human would have literally copied the original lookup map," but every bug has some sort of mistake that is made that is off the status quo. That's why it's a bug.
LLMs don't make mistakes like humans make mistakes.
If you're a SWE at my company, I can assume you have a baseline of skill and you tested the code yourself, so I'm trying to look for any edge cases or gaps or whatever that you might have missed. Do you have good enough tests to make both of us feel confident the code does what it appears to do?
With LLMs, I have to treat its code like it's a hostile adversary trying to sneak in subtle backdoors. I can't trust anything to be done honestly.