On December 25, 2025 2:54:55 PM PST, Kenneth Pettit <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 12/23/25 2:39 PM, George M. Rimakis wrote:
>>
>> He (please bear with my anthropomorphizing of the LLM), found out that
>> somehow it was causing the GUI to crash.
>>
>> I honestly don’t exactly know what he did, but he modified the code so that
>> he was able to safely push keys at the same time as a user in the GUI,
>> without the app crashing.
>>
>Would be really interested to see what changes Claude made to resolve the GUI
>crash / deadlock / garbled output if you are up to sharing them.
For the sake of science, I'm glad to see George has let Claude file the bug
report instead of typing it up himself. Understanding the code — or trying to —
would end George's experiment in "vibe coding" in which one "embraces
exponentials and forgets the code exists".
I'm fascinated seeing a hybrid approach happening in real-life: We have a vibe
coder making a patch for existing code that an expert coder will examine.
Clearly it saved George, the vibe coder, time and effort. If he had to
understand the original program, identify the bug, and learn enough to write a
patch, he probably wouldn't have even tried.
Now, the question is: How much time and effort will it cost Ken, the expert
programmer, to handle the AI generated report? Would it have taken Ken more or
less time if he had used Claude interactively to fix the bug?
Bug reports with patches have traditionally been very helpful, but there are
costs, especially with AI. Does Claude's description match the code generated?
Has it identified the actual source of the error? Is it the correct fix? Does
the patch break anything else? Does it add extraneous changes? Does it take an
incremental approach when refactoring would be more appropriate (or vice
versa)? Are the changes written in a way that will be easy to understand and
maintain in the future?
Ken, if you don't mind, please let us know what your experience is and if you
would welcome more patches from vibe coders in the future.
--b9
