[coldtea]

>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]

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.

[coldtea]

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]

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]

>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).

[int_19h]

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.

[LtWorf]

AI companies are unable to fix the bugs in their own text editors for years… no AI cannot fix bugs, clearly.

[coldtea]

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]

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]

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]

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]

>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.

[timacles]

AI will simply code you into an architectural corner where you can’t get out of without a refactor.

[coldtea]

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]

to be fair that happens with code i write too…