| ▲ | baq a day ago |
| of course it is vibed. it doesn't matter as long as it works. |
|
| ▲ | 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. | |
| ▲ | 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. | |
| ▲ | 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. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | 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. |
