Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A ChatGPT mistake cost us $10k

asim.bearblog.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 526 posts

Re: A ChatGPT mistake cost us $10k

#111

Post by SilasX »

Terretta wrote: post #99
userbinator wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It read like no one really knew what they were doing. "We just let it generate the code and everything seemed to work" is certainly not a good way to market your company.

> It read like no one really knew what they were doing. "We just let [devs] generate the code and everything seemed to work" is certainly not a good way to [whatever]. Except, have you met startup devs? This is by and large the "move fast then unbreak things" approach.

For that matter, has OP even met the HN accepted wisdom? "No one knows what they're doing, everyone's faking it, it's fine if you are too" -- so don't take it as a red flag when your fumbling around keeps blowing up, because it surely must work that way everywhere else.

My early rant against this mentality: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19214749

Re: A ChatGPT mistake cost us $10k

#113

Post by nicce »

steelbrain wrote: post #107
nicce wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably the most known example https://github.com/vercel/next.js/discussions/19065 It is not an issue if you host in Vercel. Implementing the requested feature would make the framework much better and easier to use when self-hosted elsewhere. But there is neglection to resolve the issue. This is just one case.

FWIW, we host on Cloudflare and use their API to resize images on the fly and we're fine. Not so much a "lock-in" if other vendors can fill-in, is it?

You likely needed to do more extra work than needed, when compared to some other options.

The lock-in here is the added developer time and complexity vs. just paying premium.

Re: A ChatGPT mistake cost us $10k

#114

Post by nicce »

kevindamm wrote: post #108
mattigames wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Making things worse in a free offering by a company to profit from premium offerings by the same company its the pinacle of capitalism, reminds me of a recurrent joke I have with a friend while playing Call Of Duty, that they will get greedier and soon will sell not only character's skins but also shaders/textures for the maps, oh so you want to see something better than placeholder textures? We have the DLC just for…

More likely outcome: ads on static textures and between lobbies, oh but you can pay to turn them into _theme of the week_.

Don't give them ideas...

Re: A ChatGPT mistake cost us $10k

#115

Post by paulmd »

tazjin wrote: post #76
viraptor wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This code would pass static type validation, there's nothing wrong with it at that level. It gets a default value to use and does exactly that.

Sure, you can follow along the old meme: https://twitter.com/vbhvsgr/status/1419369352164372482 Though in practice in decent languages it's much less likely you'd write your own `any -> any, any`-typed library for whatever (in this case DB interactions), and use a strongly typed one in which this would at least have been a much more explicit mistake to make.

I thought this was going to be the xkcd ‘int rand() {return 6; //chosen by fair dice roll}’, which is more or less what they did lol.

Re: A ChatGPT mistake cost us $10k

#117

Post by [deleted] »

clpmsf wrote: post #110

It seems YC is trending younger with this AI wave (I believe average age of the most recent batch was ~26) - kids dropping out of college to build startups without ever having worked at a real software engineering job... I imagine this type of story is not at all uncommon at the moment.

[deleted]

Re: A ChatGPT mistake cost us $10k

#118

Post by peter_l_downs »

internetter wrote: post #4

"Note: I want to preface this by saying yes the practices here are bad and could have been avoided. This was from a different time under large time constraints. Please read with that in mind" These "constraints" are why I'm terrified of subscribing to software

I have immense respect for the OP for writing up the story, and even more so for giving this preface. It's really useful to know what mistakes other people make, but can be quite embarrassing to tell others about mistakes you've made. Thanks, OP.

Re: A ChatGPT mistake cost us $10k

#119

Post by _heimdall »

brigadier132 wrote: post #78
nicce wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> NextJS There is well-hidden vendor-lock when using NextJS, at least.

There is no vendor lockin with nextjs

There is no explicit vendor lock-in, but features of the framework are designed heavily towards Vercel-specific features.

The SST team actually has an open-next project[1] that does a ton of work to shim most of the Vercel-specific features into an AWS deployment. I don't think it has full parity and it's a third party adapter from a competing host. The fact that it's needed at all is a sign of now closely tied Next and Vercel are.

[1] https://github.com/sst/open-next

Re: A ChatGPT mistake cost us $10k

#120

Post by klabb3 »

DataDive wrote: post #9

proper title: database modeling bug costs company 10K but then perhaps coding the entire thing with ChatGPT saved the company more than 10K, so they came out well ahead or maybe tons of other bugs lurk that will cost the company well over 10K over the long run

In a typical web based app, schema is the one and only thing that you should be paranoid about. Writing it by hand is important for the same reason typing your password to confirm a big transaction is important. The time and thought going into it is worth its weight in gold. I would rather write it with one finger twice over, than giving it to ChatGPT.
Post reply on HN