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).