undefined

I think bad software has the possibility of redemption with rewrites and re-engineering efforts. For those of us who are license locked that's probably never going to benefit us :(

by farkerhaiku4 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

bad software will be replacable.

by pphysch1 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Bad software, as in stateless programs, doesn't actually matter and never did. They can be replaced trivially.

The problem is the real world isn't made of stateless programs, but lots of important data in bespoke formats/schemas, and if you change the shitty software that interacts with the important data, in the wrong way, you can lose everything.

by JamesSwift10 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

Time-to-fix is lower, but time-to-new-bug is also lower

by exabrial11 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

The marketing here trick is, if they spent the same money on humans they'd have found it years ago.

Instead, the lurking variable here is new budget was added. With the new budget, they added a new tool, and the bug was located.

The difference here was budget.

by efficax11 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

the budget for allowing a single engineer to deep dive on a bug that is annoying but also not bad enough that you can live with it for years is pretty big. $10k a month or more. My budget for Claude is $200/mo.

by tripleee11 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Why are you assuming letting Fable run wild and find the cause here cost under $200?

by nicce7 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

I used Fable once. Used through API and asked it to review one 2k word plan. It costed me 15 dollars and haven't used it since.

by coder-pm11 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

That kind of one shot capability is impressive but how does it work for my typical work style? The way I work is to build a huge roadmap with goals and hand it to my agent to execute (often over night). I don't care that much about the benchmarks, what I care about is how often Fable 5.1 is making a baffling decision and destroys my plan, not respecting stop conditions or goals. I would seek for behavioral reliability over long autonomous runs, not eval scores. Anyone have that kind of feedback and observations?

by ruszki53 minutes ago|

prev|

[-]

My experience with such problems, is that they stay for this long because nobody cares, not because it's impossible, or even technically too difficult. So hopefully, LLM will improve things, but that quote is a lie.

by Thaxll3 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

You have a serious engineering problem if you're not able to find the source of a crash after years.

by brokencode2 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

If it’s rare and the impact is low, then it’s not getting prioritized. It doesn’t matter how much time passes if you decide not to spend time investigating.

by enraged_camel3 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

You are either seriously naive, or have never worked on any large and complex legacy codebase.

by DaiPlusPlus2 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

I’ve been living in a bubble with my .NET day-job, where debugging/tracing/postmortems are a breeze. Compare with, say, a CORBA or DCOM system, deployed to prod with uber-optimized binaries without any debugging-symbols.

So it’s not that I haven’t worked on large-scale, complex legacy systems - but that I haven’t worked on any large-scale, complex legacy systems written in languages bereft of runtime reflection and verbose error reporting.

—————

It’s also possible that the bug was never found because its impact was so minimal: e.g. 1 crash per year, each causing 3 minutes’ downtime in a noncritical system: that’s something that will never get investigated fully.

by slashdave1 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

If only!

by kilroy12311 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

I think we'll have lots of bugs. They'll just be found and closed way sooner. You'll have an agent that watchs for issues, then opens a PR fixing it.

by DarmokTanagra1 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

Oh you sweet summer child.

Vibe coded slop is filled to the brim with bugs.

by PedroBatista12 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

I sometimes have that feeling too, then ask another LLM to do a code and vulnerability review and OMG: rookie mistakes, over complications and security gaps even a 1st year student would not make regularly.

So.. one more year of untreated bipolar AI psychosis I guess..

by brokencode1 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

At least we are at a point where we can have AI review code and reliably find real problems. That alone is incredibly valuable.

by chpatrick11 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

I think these kinds of comments really need to say which LLM that is. There's an enormous difference in skill between the frontier ones and say the Google search AI.

by PedroBatista4 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Codex Luna, Terra and Sol. Claude Opus, Sonnet and sometime Fable.

They all work, they all are "good", they all are both "smart" and commit incredible basic mistakes a fair amount of times.

Then there's the cost situation..

by maximinus_thrax6 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

> Say what you will about LLM-generated code, but stories like this give me hope that software will never be as buggy as it once was.

Stories like these is what I now call 'Marketing slop'

by aennassiri11 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

We will have more bugs. Even the best models with the best software engineers will produce bugs. There are two reasons : first the pressure to produce more and second LLMs will always produce slop

by anthonyrstevens8 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

>> LLMs will always produce slop

Such a low-quality comment

by aennassiri25 minutes ago|

parent|

[-]

What are your arguments then ? What are your thoughts ? I use fable everyday and it is always coming up with changes on thousands of files for simple things, overall the code does the job but there is always marginal slop or unnecessary code to be addressed.