| I hate to be that guy, but... one week old project, clear signs of vibing. I will be shocked if the remaining work listed (cpython test suite) proceeds in any reasonable timeline. This is a pretty hard problem to just solve in a week. EDIT: and man, these kind of comments LLM created comments are really starting to grind my gears as my job slowly turns into reviewing LLM PRs: > Known gaps at the language level are burned down through the ratcheted floors above — the committed floor files, not this README, are the authoritative compatibility baseline. |
| |
| ▲ | ActionHank a day ago | parent | next [-] | | That's the neat part, when it's vibed it works, until it doesn't and then it's really hard to make it work again. | | |
| ▲ | coldtea a day ago | parent [-] | | >when it's vibed it works, until it doesn't and then it's really hard to make it work again Is it? People have solved AI bugs with AI. If some vibe project eventually hits some bug and stops working, what exactly stops using AI to fix it? Is the idea that bugs will go beyond the limits of AI capability? If you meant to say that when an AI vibe coded project beyond some complexity it's difficult for a human coder to manually go through all the code they didn't write, understand it, and find the issue, sure. | | |
| ▲ | ubercore a day ago | parent | next [-] | | The problem is the _way_ AI will solve an AI bug. I've seen the loop countless times. There's a creeping complexity and brittleness that creeps in over time as more and more complexity is left purely to the LLM agent. It will become unsustainable without a human understanding and making course corrections at some point. | | |
| ▲ | int_19h a day ago | parent | next [-] | | If you just keep throwing feature requests at an LLM, then yes, this happens. However it can self-correct if you specifically give it engineering debt / code cleanup as a task. And Fable in particular is very good at this exact thing. | |
| ▲ | coldtea a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | In my experience, it just needs some high level guidance. And it's quite easy to ask an AI to refactor a certain way too. | | |
| ▲ | ubercore 21 hours ago | parent [-] | | Been there done that. My point is that even with Fable being a big improvement, it still needs constant feedback. The loops themselves are a lot better, but it still needs judgement calls, and Fable will often take an odd direction, and if you don't catch it, that odd choice will compound as it continues to layer on top. | | |
| ▲ | coldtea 21 hours ago | parent [-] | | >Been there done that. My point is that even with Fable being a big improvement, it still needs constant feedback. Even so, if it does 80% of the work itself, that's still a 5x improvement. Plus it keeps the human coder in control and in the loop (and in a job). |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | timacles a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | AI will simply code you into an architectural corner where you can’t get out of without a refactor. | | |
| ▲ | coldtea a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Not if you give it guidance for the architecture and don't just blindly let it one-shot after one-shot of huge chunks of the program. Besides, AI can also be told to do the refactor. | |
| ▲ | nielsbot a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | to be fair that happens with code i write too… |
| |
| ▲ | LtWorf a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | AI companies are unable to fix the bugs in their own text editors for years… no AI cannot fix bugs, clearly. | | |
| ▲ | coldtea a day ago | parent [-] | | Doesn't matter what AI companies do, since AI companies just "move fast and break things" not caring for bug fixing but for iterating quickly on their agents. That's a business decision, not an AI limitation. If you use AI yourself, with a focus on bug fixing and stability, you'll find that AI can fix bugs just fine. | | |
| ▲ | LtWorf a day ago | parent [-] | | It matters, it shows the limits of the technology, and they have all the interest to showcase how good it is (and are failing to show it can fix bugs) | | |
| ▲ | coldtea a day ago | parent [-] | | They have little interest to "showcase how good it is with doing that" since (a) people already see it's good and are hooked, (b) they don't want to stop the pace of changes and fall behind on features by focusing on stability and bug fixing. | | |
| ▲ | LtWorf 21 hours ago | parent [-] | | They literally could use unlimited tokens and focus on both… it's telling that they cannot. And they are TRYING to fix the bugs, they just keep failing over and over, so your reply is entirely incorrect. Nice try though. | | |
| ▲ | coldtea 21 hours ago | parent [-] | | >They literally could use unlimited tokens and focus on both… it's telling that they cannot. If you ship updates fast, you can't just 'focus on both'. You focus on one or another, doesn't matter if you use "unlimited tokens", same way 9 pregnant women can't make a baby in a month. >And they are TRYING to fix the bugs, they just keep failing over and over, so your reply is entirely incorrect. That they "keep failing over and over" is a huge overstatement, it just has some bugs like other software has, so your point can be simply dismissed. | | |
| ▲ | LtWorf 20 hours ago | parent [-] | | > you can't just 'focus on both' Can you explain why not? Just spin up another agent. 9 pregnant women can do 9 babies in 9 months. This is a real question. I assure you that teams of more than 1 developer do exist, so I don't see why agents could not work on the same code. > That they "keep failing over and over" is a huge overstatement You call it an overstatement because of your religious beliefs. Unfortunately religious beliefs don't really change the fact that they keep failing in fixing their things. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfYsSFY4l18 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | nozzlegear a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > it doesn't matter as long as it works. I think the clankers would call this a "load bearing statement". | | | |
| ▲ | kameit00 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | In 12 months… vibe code mess. Or discontinued. Or both. | | |
| ▲ | ttul a day ago | parent [-] | | How much time have you spent with Fable? We're in new territory here. It does not create messes. | | |
| ▲ | nozzlegear a day ago | parent | next [-] | | > We're in new territory here. > It does not create messes. ? | |
| ▲ | ubercore a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Anecdote, yes, but I am _right now in the middle of helping Fable clean up a mess_. Complex code is hard and Fable still makes mistakes. | |
| ▲ | what a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | >this time it’s different! Same thing people claim every time a new model is released, yet never seems to be true. | | |
| ▲ | int_19h a day ago | parent [-] | | It was true every time though. The capacity of frontier models to tackle complicated issues has improved immensely. I still remember the first time I saw a model do a non-trivial issue end to end, and that was less than two years ago. Now they can genuinely do whole projects with human only as a supervisor / quality checker. Do they still make mistakes? Sure. So do humans, though, so it would be unrealistic to expect perfection. The question is: does Fable make fewer mistakes than the median human coder? And at this point I'm genuinely not sure anymore. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | mcphage a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Given the stdlib modules listed as "explicitly not done yet", I'm going to say: it doesn't yet, in any meaningful sense. The question then becomes: how confident do we feel that it will work in the near future? | | |
| ▲ | ubercore a day ago | parent [-] | | I was trying to say "not confident at all" but hedged a bit too much. I see this as a case of the "quick to get to a POC that falls apart after sustained development for the same reasons it didn't work pre-Fable" problem. |
| |
| ▲ | getpokedagain a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Something working is pointless if there are no users and no need is being addressed. |
|
