I'm quite sorry, I didn't mean to "send anyone over the top". Of course I did not plan to share or commit anything regarding Claude's changes back to anyone here. Until of course Ken specifically asked me to, presumably out of curiosity.
So I can only hope your reply here is merely a misunderstanding, perhaps for not having read prior emails quite thoroughly enough. I have no desire to take ownership of the generated code, because quite frankly it was generated for my personal use. Nobody will be poisoned by the MCP server running on Mac Mini. - George On Sat, Dec 27, 2025 at 8:51 AM Brian K. White <[email protected]> wrote: > On 12/26/25 16:08, B9 wrote: > > > > > > 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 > > > > > I'll just say this much: > > I haven't commented on this thread at all yet because John doesn't like > us to be mean to each other here. But I am very much in the Daniel > Stenberg camp on this. > > The latest post where George regurgitated the AI's own explanation for > what it did (instead of understanding and explaining, and taking > ownership himself) sent me over the top. > > Ken is nice, but that just means Ken is nice. Good for Ken and lucky for > George. > > It's still basically abusive of others to submit work from an unthinking > unknowing tool that you yourself can't explain, vet, sign-off on, and > put your own name on and take responsibility for. > > But a non programmer doesn't understand what the problem is, and I'm > unable to write the explanation in a way that is likely to be read. > > Actually it's not even really a programmer thing, it's a respect for > others thing. > > If I asked for a cake recipe, and you used an ai to generate a cake > recipe and gave it to me without yourself being able to say that the > cake recipe will never poison anyone, or even just taste bad or fall > apart in all expected usage scenarios, then how can you live with > yourself? If I asked for the formula or table to map how much water a > field will need based on the type of soil and the type of crop, and > instead of performing the research to actually know the correct data, > you just had something generate an answer that who knows, might be > right, how can you live with yourself? > > Somehow people do it for coding and think it's fine. > > -- > bkw >
