Thats fine but then Fable 5 should have requested this information instead of blundering along. So why didn't it? An expert human asked to do the same task would have surely asked for the additional data.
That's like saying Fable 5 should have told me how to prompt it to solve the Riemann hypothesis like Terence Tao would. The skill of the user still matters.
"I have not spent the time cultivating the soft skills necessary to leverage this tool successfully therefore it's the tool that sucks."
How about give pointers on "doing it right?"
My expectation: inexperienced FP is trying to shoehorn a mutation-based approach into a framework that performs best with immutable data, or is manually recreating familiar structure (for loop) instead of using the idiomatic way.
But what do you tell someone in this case? They really need to learn more about the basics. Which is how I am interpreting the GGP’s dismissive-sounding comment.
Work on your project management, communication, and mentorship skills. The AI tools are much more like a team of sloppy but capable junior engineers and not a reliably consistent fabrication machine. Change your perception that one simple prompt is going to magically solve a hard problem the first time. Learn to break projects down, organize them into sub-projects, and implement them in steps. Learn to communicate more clearly, define your requirements more rigorously, and adapt around your "team's" strengths and weaknesses.
We want these things to be rigorous and flawless but reality is messy just like working with a regular team of engineers. They are good at some things, terrible at others, constantly changing, and unreliable. But we've historically built tons of reliable software on unreliable actors by focusing on process, collaboration, and communication.
AKA, not just the hard technical skills, but the soft skills that allow unreliable software teams to thrive. They don't know what they don't know and it's your job to manage that.