问HN：为什么AI编码助手对我不起作用？
我真的在努力以开放的心态使用它们。我正在编写详细的规格说明。在出现问题时，我会调整初始规格，而不是陷入反复请求调整的恶性循环。我在 Cursor 中使用 Claude Opus 4.5。我的期望也相对较低。最近的目标是根据一个相当简单的标准，将一个超大的 Python 文件拆分成几个子模块。问题并不是它失败了，而是它的处理方式。它试图通过编写一些 Python 单行代码来重构文件，但方式极其笨拙——在许多情况下未能写出“语法正确”的 Python 代码。
我感到矛盾，因为我不想成为一个老顽固，站在一旁大喊“LLM 是垃圾”，而且很多理智的人似乎都能很好地使用它们。但我的体验相当糟糕。所以，也许是我使用的方法不对？
公平地说，这不仅仅是失败。我发现它在编写一些无害的代码方面表现相当不错，比如测试、一些简单的工具，这些工具我本来不会去费心做，但却能节省我几分钟的时间。不过，确实没有什么出色的表现。它在处理一般查询和设计问题方面也不错。但实际上并没有帮助我完成程序员的工作。
在谷歌搜索这个话题，主要得到的都是各种骗子的无代码快速致富的独家在线课程，充满了 AdWord 关键词，或者是关于拥有数百个为最新代理高度优化的存储提示的超优化答案，但我希望在这里能得到更高质量的回答。
查看原文
I'm really trying to use them with an open mind. I'm writing detailed specs. On failure, I adjust the initial spec, rather than go down the spiral of asking for many adjustments. I'm using Claude Opus 4.5 inside Cursor. My ambitions are also quite low. The latest was to split a mega Python file into a few submodules according to a pretty simple criterion. It's not even that it failed, it is more about the how. It was trying to action the refactor by writing some Python one-liners to edit the file, in an extremely clumsy way - in many cases failing to write <i>syntactically correct</i> Python.<p>I'm torn, as I don't want to be an old man luddite shouting at the clouds "LLMs are garbage", and plenty of reasonable people seem to do well with them. But my experience is rather poor. So, maybe I'm holding it wrong?<p>It's not only failures, to be fair. I found it fairly good at writing a lot of benign code, like tests, simple tools I wouldn't bother with that save me a few mins here and there. But certainly nothing great. Also good at general queries and asking design questions. But not actually doing my job of being a programmer.<p>Googling the topic mostly yields various grifters' exclusive online courses in no-code get rich quick agents packed with AdWord keywords, or hyper optimised answers about having 100s of stored prompts hypertuned for the latest agent, but hoping for higher quality answers here.