Even if the chatbot served only as a Rubber Ducky [1], that's already valuable.

I've used Claude for debugging system behavior, and I kind of agree with the author. While Claude isn't always directly helpful (hallucinations remain, or at least outdated information), it helps me 1) spell out my understanding of the system (see [1]) and 2) help me keep momentum by supplying tasks.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubber_duck_debugging

▲

NewJazz 3 hours ago | parent [-]

A rubber ducky demands that you think about your own questions, rather than taking a mental back seat as you get pummeled with information that may or may not be relevant.

▲

supern0va 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I assure you that if you rubber duck at another engineer that doesn't understand what you're doing, you will also be pummeled with information that may or may not be relevant. ;)

▲

stephenr an hour ago | parent [-]

That isn't rubber duck debugging. It's just talking to someone about the problem.

The entire point of rubber duck debugging is that the other side literally cannot respond - it's an inanimate object, or even a literal duck/animal.

	▲	quesera 16 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Oh it can definitely be a person. I've worked with a few!

▲

grimgrin an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I'm not saying you should do this, but you can do this:

https://gist.github.com/shmup/100a7529724cedfcda1276a65664dc...

▲

MBCook an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

They also don’t waste electricity, water, drive up the prices of critical computer components, or DDOS websites to steal their content.