8 ms·
It doesn't push back enough when I ask it to implement something that is a bad idea. I've caught it breaking threading code, and then fixing it by putting atomi
by bluGill 7mo ago
It doesn't push back enough when I ask it to implement something that is a bad idea. I've caught it breaking threading code, and then fixing it by putting atomic in the wrong place: which might have fixed in that a few racey tests can now run a thousands times, but it wasn't the right place and so the race still exist. It has changed constants when moving the constant to a different file (the move was required, but the constant were not expected to change).
I have found it very helpful to ask AI to review the latest changes - it often finds serious problems in review of code it just wrote.
- georgemcbay 7mo ago> which might have fixed in that a few racey tests can now run a thousands times, but it wasn't the right place and so the race still exist. One somewhat related thing I've noticed from all the major LLMs is a tendency to 'fix' multithreading race conditions by inserting delay calls of seemingly random amounts of milliseconds to 'give things time to settle'. It kinda makes sense why they do it because I've seen similar human generated code over the years, but it doesn't instill a lot of confidence in unreviewed 'vibecoded' systems.
- alsetmusic 7mo agoI see it get into a loop where I explain bugs and it confidently tells me they're fixed without touching the issues. After multiple bad outputs, telling it that I don't trust it and it has to run everything by me for approval solves the problem. Continued guidance each time it tells me what I "thinks" it knows is required to make it work properly.