Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
This is why working for startups gives me PTSD. I wouldn't recommend it to anyone.
A ChatGPT mistake cost us $10k
131–140 of 526 posts
Re: A ChatGPT mistake cost us $10k
#132A good chance to learn why people who write reliable software almost universally like static type systems.
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.
[1] https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/option/enum.Option.html#method...)
Re: A ChatGPT mistake cost us $10k
#133It is strange that this took 5 days to find. Simply because of logs. Go to logs. Filter by errors. Oh, errors in insert subscription. Seems relevant. I could understand if the errors were somewhere else. Even if logs didn't exist. Problematic endpoint generating 50 emails per day? I would have immediately thrown a try catch and rendered the error to the user if logging was impossible. Then your very next bug report s…
The code snippet has a subtle but significant issue in the default value of the id column. Here is the problematic part: ... In this line, default=str(uuid.uuid4()) is evaluated only once at the time of the class definition, not each time a new StripeCustomer instance is created....
Re: A ChatGPT mistake cost us $10k
#134Also reads like it was pasted from ChatGPT.
I use ChatGPT constantly and it is not the type of error it would make. It is such a common pattern.
And if you ask GPT-4o whether the code is correct, it is able to spot the issue.
Re: A ChatGPT mistake cost us $10k
#135I dont get it , line 56 every time it was invoked would call the uuid4 function to generate a unique id isn’t it? Or was the issue due to the uuid4 function not getting invoked for any reason?
Line 56 is executed as the file is loaded. Simplified, the line is essentially: id = Column(default=str(uuid.uuid4())) As written, a UUID is generated once and used to set a class-level attribute. Each Python process would generate a unique value, so it wouldn't be immediately obvious. Most of the time Python's ability to run code as a file is loaded is helpful, but this is one the well known gotchas. Although I'm no…
Re: A ChatGPT mistake cost us $10k
#136On one hand, thanks for being honest about a story of how this bug came to be. On the other hand, I don’t think advertising the fact that the company introduced a major bug from copy and pasting ChatGPT code around and that they spent a week being unable to even debug why it was failing. I don’t know much about this startup, but this blog post had the opposite effect of all of the other high quality post-mortem posts…
Re: A ChatGPT mistake cost us $10k
#137Earlier quoted context omitted.
Eh I imagine they looked over the code as well, doing code review -- and at first glance, the code looks reasonable. I certainly wasn't able to catch the bug even though I tried to find it (and I was given a tiny collection of lines and the knowledge that there's a bug there!). If anything, I think this says something about how dangerous ChatGPT and similar tools are: reading code is harder than writing code, and whe…
> I don't think this is indicative of people who don't know what they're doing. I think this is indicative of people using "AI" tools to help with programming at all. I think using AI tools to write production code is probably indicative of people who don't really know what they are doing. The best way not to have subtle bugs is to think deeply about your code, not subcontract it out -- whether that is to people far…
You could say the same about the output of a compiler. No one owns that at a cognitive level. They own it at a higher level - the source code.
Same thing here. You own the output of the AI at a cognitive level, because you own the prompts that created it.
Re: A ChatGPT mistake cost us $10k
#138Earlier quoted context omitted.
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...
I can imagine worse, too! They haven't even really started turning that knob yet.
Re: A ChatGPT mistake cost us $10k
#139lol "worst".
Re: A ChatGPT mistake cost us $10k
#140> Our project was originally full stack NextJS but we wanted to first migrate everything to Python/FastAPI. Tell me you had no business being invested in without telling me. I’m going to be harsh here but I honestly have no clue how else to respond. You wrote your backend in Node/Typescript and then decided to change it to Python. What in the world would make that a good idea? No seriously, there is absolutely nothin…
Check out their comment history to see who invested in them.