Brian, George,
I understand how you could feel this way Brian, especially regarding
code authorship, and I appreciate you having my back.
However, I wss not put out in any way ... I *did* ask George to post the
updates Claude made. And I was kinda checking email every 8 hours to
see if he had done so. :) I wanted to get an idea what the AI believed
the issues was (suspsected I already knew, though also learned about
Apple's specific thread requirements) so I could either pull in the
changes or make my own.
Also George, I believe you have been very forward in identifying that
Claude was making these changes, which I appreciate.
I'm just happy someone is able to get some kind of use out of the socket
interface that has been sitting idle for so many years! :) And all of
this new discussion / use of VirtualT has gotten me off my tail to push
my 2 year old changes to my repo. After my trip to CES I will focus on
pulling in other PRs that have been identified.
So as far as I'm concerned regarding this, all is good.
Ken
On 12/27/25 6:21 AM, George M. Rimakis wrote:
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
