3 ms·

Even if the chatbot served only as a Rubber Ducky [1], that's already valuable. I've used Claude for debugging system behavior, and I kind of agree with the au

Even if the chatbot served only as a Rubber Ducky [1], that's already valuable. I've used Claude for debugging system behavior, and I kind of agree with the author. While Claude isn't always directly helpful (hallucinations remain, or at least outdated information), it helps me 1) spell out my understanding of the system (see [1]) and 2) help me keep momentum by supplying tasks. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubber_duck_debugging https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubber_duck_debugging

NewJazz 9mo ago
A rubber ducky demands that you think about your own questions, rather than taking a mental back seat as you get pummeled with information that may or may not be relevant.
- supern0va 9mo ago
  I assure you that if you rubber duck at another engineer that doesn't understand what you're doing, you will also be pummeled with information that may or may not be relevant. ;)
  - stephenr 9mo ago
    That isn't rubber duck debugging. It's just talking to someone about the problem. The entire point of rubber duck debugging is that the other side literally cannot respond - it's an inanimate object, or even a literal duck/animal.
    - quesera 9mo ago
      Oh it can definitely be a person. I've worked with a few!
      - stephenr 9mo ago
        Cue obligatory Ralph Fiennes "You're an inanimate fucking object".
    - fc417fc802 9mo ago
      I don't think that's right. When you explain a technical problem to someone who isn't intimately familiar with it you're forced to think through the individual steps in quite a bit of detail. Of course that itself is an acquired skill but never mind that. The point or rubber duck debugging then is to realize the benefit of verbally describing the problem without needing to interrupt your colleague and waste his time in order to do so. It's born of the recognition that often, midway through wasting your colleague's time, you'll trail off with an "oh ..." and exit the conversation. You've ended up figuring out the problem before ever actually receiving any feedback. To that end an LLM works perfectly well as long as you still need to walk through a full explanation of the problem (ie minimal relevant context). An added bonus being that the LLM offers at least some of the benefits of a live person who can point out errors or alert you to new information as you go. Basically my quibble is that to me the entire point of rubber duck debugging is "doesn't waste a real person's time" but it comes with the noticeable drawback of "plastic duck is incapable of contributing any useful insights".
      - NewJazz 9mo ago
        To that end a notepad works just as well.
        fc417fc802 9mo ago
        In reality vim is my usual approach. But I think LLMs are better in a lot of regards.
      - dspillett 9mo ago
        > When you explain a technical problem to someone who isn't intimately familiar with it you're forced to think through the individual steps in quite a bit of detail. The point of Rubber Ducking (or talking/praying to the Wooden Indian, to use an older phrase that is steeped in somewhat racist undertones so no longer generally used) is that it is an inanimate object that doesn't talk back. You still talk to it as if you were explaining to another person, so are forcing yourself to get your thoughts in order in a way that would make that possible, but actually talking to another person who is actively listening and actually asking questions is the next level.
    - nurettin 9mo ago
      Before you expand the definition to every object in the universe, maybe we could call it parrot debugging.
- MBCook 9mo ago
  They also don’t waste electricity, water, drive up the prices of critical computer components, or DDOS websites to steal their content.
  - AceJohnny2 9mo ago
    Not to defend the extravagant power use of the AI datacenters, but I invite you to look up the ecological footprint of a human being.
    - MBCook 9mo ago
      The human being in this scenario exists either way. The AI does not.
- grimgrin 9mo ago
  I'm not saying you should do this, but you can do this: https://gist.github.com/shmup/100a7529724cedfcda1276a65664dcbe https://gist.github.com/shmup/100a7529724cedfcda1276a65664dc...
  - NewJazz 9mo ago
    Lol not bad
  - fc417fc802 9mo ago
    Amusingly that looks less like "rubber duck debugging" and more like "socratic questions". Which certainly isn't a bad thing.
    - grimgrin 9mo ago
      That is so true I wanted to "fix it", granted, I'm not even using these at the moment, but I appreciated the idea https://github.com/shmup/metacog-skills/ https://github.com/shmup/metacog-skills/
specialist 9mo ago
Rubber Ducky is a terrific name for a GPT. Also, always reminds me of Kermit singing "...you make bath time so much fun!..."
- saghm 9mo ago
  Maybe Kermit has sung it at some point, but that's Ernie's song usually
  - specialist 9mo ago
    Ha. Well spotted. I totally hallucinated that.
    - nurettin 9mo ago
      Maybe it was this one https://muppet.fandom.com/wiki/Do_De_Rubber_Duck https://muppet.fandom.com/wiki/Do_De_Rubber_Duck
dspillett 9mo ago
> Even if the chatbot served only as a Rubber Ducky [1], that's already valuable. I use the Other Voices for that. I can't entirely turn them off, I might as well make use of them!

NewJazz 9mo ago

A rubber ducky demands that you think about your own questions, rather than taking a mental back seat as you get pummeled with information that may or may not be relevant.

supern0va 9mo ago
I assure you that if you rubber duck at another engineer that doesn't understand what you're doing, you will also be pummeled with information that may or may not be relevant. ;)
- stephenr 9mo ago
  That isn't rubber duck debugging. It's just talking to someone about the problem. The entire point of rubber duck debugging is that the other side literally cannot respond - it's an inanimate object, or even a literal duck/animal.
  - quesera 9mo ago
    Oh it can definitely be a person. I've worked with a few!
    - stephenr 9mo ago
      Cue obligatory Ralph Fiennes "You're an inanimate fucking object".
  - fc417fc802 9mo ago
    I don't think that's right. When you explain a technical problem to someone who isn't intimately familiar with it you're forced to think through the individual steps in quite a bit of detail. Of course that itself is an acquired skill but never mind that. The point or rubber duck debugging then is to realize the benefit of verbally describing the problem without needing to interrupt your colleague and waste his time in order to do so. It's born of the recognition that often, midway through wasting your colleague's time, you'll trail off with an "oh ..." and exit the conversation. You've ended up figuring out the problem before ever actually receiving any feedback. To that end an LLM works perfectly well as long as you still need to walk through a full explanation of the problem (ie minimal relevant context). An added bonus being that the LLM offers at least some of the benefits of a live person who can point out errors or alert you to new information as you go. Basically my quibble is that to me the entire point of rubber duck debugging is "doesn't waste a real person's time" but it comes with the noticeable drawback of "plastic duck is incapable of contributing any useful insights".
    - NewJazz 9mo ago
      To that end a notepad works just as well.
      - fc417fc802 9mo ago
        In reality vim is my usual approach. But I think LLMs are better in a lot of regards.
    - dspillett 9mo ago
      > When you explain a technical problem to someone who isn't intimately familiar with it you're forced to think through the individual steps in quite a bit of detail. The point of Rubber Ducking (or talking/praying to the Wooden Indian, to use an older phrase that is steeped in somewhat racist undertones so no longer generally used) is that it is an inanimate object that doesn't talk back. You still talk to it as if you were explaining to another person, so are forcing yourself to get your thoughts in order in a way that would make that possible, but actually talking to another person who is actively listening and actually asking questions is the next level.
  - nurettin 9mo ago
    Before you expand the definition to every object in the universe, maybe we could call it parrot debugging.
MBCook 9mo ago
They also don’t waste electricity, water, drive up the prices of critical computer components, or DDOS websites to steal their content.
- AceJohnny2 9mo ago
  Not to defend the extravagant power use of the AI datacenters, but I invite you to look up the ecological footprint of a human being.
  - MBCook 9mo ago
    The human being in this scenario exists either way. The AI does not.
grimgrin 9mo ago
I'm not saying you should do this, but you can do this: https://gist.github.com/shmup/100a7529724cedfcda1276a65664dcbe https://gist.github.com/shmup/100a7529724cedfcda1276a65664dc...
- NewJazz 9mo ago
  Lol not bad
- fc417fc802 9mo ago
  Amusingly that looks less like "rubber duck debugging" and more like "socratic questions". Which certainly isn't a bad thing.
  - grimgrin 9mo ago
    That is so true I wanted to "fix it", granted, I'm not even using these at the moment, but I appreciated the idea https://github.com/shmup/metacog-skills/ https://github.com/shmup/metacog-skills/

specialist 9mo ago

Rubber Ducky is a terrific name for a GPT. Also, always reminds me of Kermit singing "...you make bath time so much fun!..."

saghm 9mo ago
Maybe Kermit has sung it at some point, but that's Ernie's song usually
- specialist 9mo ago
  Ha. Well spotted. I totally hallucinated that.
  - nurettin 9mo ago
    Maybe it was this one https://muppet.fandom.com/wiki/Do_De_Rubber_Duck https://muppet.fandom.com/wiki/Do_De_Rubber_Duck

dspillett 9mo ago

> Even if the chatbot served only as a Rubber Ducky [1], that's already valuable. I use the Other Voices for that. I can't entirely turn them off, I might as well make use of them!