So this is the actual amazing thing. Claude does absolutely fantastic with rambling. As I am dictating I may change my mind three times as I keep imagining new cases or new constraints. And then at the end of my prompt I will say something like OK this has been a whole lot of brainstorming in different directions. I'd like you to summarize from me what you interpret as the final decisions and the reasoning behind it and the reasoning for why we are not going to adopt the proposed alternatives. And then tell me if you think I'm missing anything.

And it does. I don't even have to write out my final thoughts neatly summarized myself. Claude figures it out on its own and saves me a bunch of time. It's much faster for me to read it's logically laid out conclusions and confirm that that is actually what I had meant. Never once have I seen it get it wrong, but quite frequently it raises additional points for me to consider or highlights potential inconsistencies in what I have said.

So the actual session itself with Claude includes a whole lot of rambling and brainstorming, but then the actual documented artifacts of the session are the nice clean summary of what we figured out. And then, for example, when we move from a brainstorming design phase into a coding implementation phase, I'll start a brand new session so that it's context isn't polluted by the brainstorming and rambling but is rather starting off with the nicely organized document that had been created as the artifact from the previous session.

And this is why dictation works so well as a feature. Because it means I frequently wind up essentially "oversharing" my product requirements with Claude, and it will frequently suggest potential solutions that I had overlooked because I was already assuming that the solution would take a particular form. So it becomes surprisingly collaborative rather than me just dumping requirements into Claude.

That's actually why this method is so powerful: ramblings are actually good as prompts. Seriously, try it.

I actually like this about talking vs. typing. often I feel like I get better results since I think give it more context around spec and decisions.

> I just can't imagine how it works in reality.

I can promise you it does, and it's amazing. I can stream-of-consciousness to the LLM, correcting and changing myself within the same paragraph of text and it works it out. Sometimes I clean up the text if I really went off into left-field but I just straight word-vomit into the text field and get amazing results. I don't waste my time editing, cleaning it up, etc, just speak and send. Dictation is gotten so good that I barely need to review/edit it. Even mistakes "committed" vs "commit it" and other mis-hearing are handling very well. Every once in a while the LLM needs to clarify but it's rare.

Less than 5 times out of thousands of prompts I've sent this way have failed due to bad dictation results and all but 1-2 of those were caught very quickly. In one, maybe two, cases it got pretty far along before I realized the mistake but I like those odds and nothing made it to PR (let alone a deployed environment) before it was caught. It was in reviewing the plan where I was like "what are you going on about?" and then scrolled up to see what it misheard from me which completely explained it's confusion and it going in the wrong direction. No problem, kill that session and restart with the right prompt.

As for "Fun", yeah, it's incredibly fun because I don't have to filter/edit upfront. It's how I talk to most LLMs, dump _as much_ context as I can verbally into it and let it sort it out. I, like pretty much everyone, can talk faster than I can type so I find myself giving MUCH more detailed prompts to agents as compared to if I had to type it all.