141–150 of 296 posts
Codex is one of the most infamous examples of slopware. Just having the window unhidden on my mac will cause it to use 100% of the GPU displaying the spinner message. THE SPINNER MESSAGE CAUSES 100% GPU USAGE ON AN MBP M5!! So any time you're waiting on the model (which is 90% of the time), your fans will be blasting (careful, don't use it on battery). The issue is on github and close to 6 months old. Probably since…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the code churn is high the investment to refactoring etc is less beneficial than may be obvious. I don't remember the details but I heard in some podcast that the code base of Claude Code changes so fast that any piece of code won't be there for long..
In other words it's an ever moving vibe fest, with random bugs and misbehaviors each time they roll the dice...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is the biggest elephant in the room I have seen in my decade+ career. At the same time, look how bad Apple is in software compared to its hardware... It's not an AI only problem, it's almost like software in general gets a free pass on being very unsafe or low quality because no one wants to face the same "profit reducing red tape" that civil engineers or similar face.
Anthropic were the progenitors of the Model Context Protocol. Claude Code does not fully implement the client end of the protocol. A protocol; a literal pre-defined spec that an agent should be able to one-shot. Neither does Codex. Codex does not implement MCP Prompts. (I want Codex to implement MCP Prompts because then we have one central way to ship skills from a server). The fact that neither platform can implemen…
Especially when fully implementing it (prompts, resources, tools) is easily done in harnesses that don’t ship with MCP but allow good extension / modification like Pi.
Claude not being able to see its own usage or self invoke slash commands is also very frustrating.
I think part of the question should be, why is there no QA or test that catches this? It's one thing to be slopware, but why didn't anything run a test that catches this?
Every time you write a test that handles some data, you write an assertion about how much data is handled? Come on, this is such an easy thing to forget to test. Don't act like there is some magical testing strategy that would have caught this
Integration testing could/should catch this, especially for a client side app.
A simple constraints is a good thing. "Our app shouldn't use more than 50mb of ram, or use 3gb of disk space."
This thread will become a typical "haha slop company made slop" but I've been bitten by a bug exactly like this before in a (pre-AI, artisan) OSS project. The maintainer there didn't properly account for DST when calculating last backup time, so the app started and never stopped writing/re-writing backups continuously. Perhaps the framing shouldn't be "haha slop" but rather why doesn't the AI write better quality sof…
We've gone from "you're holding it wrong" to "the training data was bad because humans suck too". Difference is, humans learn from their mistakes.
My experience was always that 90% of code is ugly and clunky. I'm not at all surprised, while reviewing AI-generated code, to see many of the same ugliness we regularly commit. The quality of the output code is now consistently average, which means it's basically shit in 90% of cases, but it tends to mostly work (in the general case). The same kind of shit I've seen people push to production thousands of times in my career.
We don't fully know how to write good code. We don't really understand what good code should objectively look like. Spending more time on code doesn't automatically lead to better code (but costs a lot more). Above all, we don't need good code - the business side is perfectly fine with "good enough right now" rather than "maybe a lot better half a year from now". And that's what the models are trained on. They would, indeed, need quite a lot of "emergent properties" to go from that to consistently good code. ASI-level properties, I suspect.
Codex is one of the most infamous examples of slopware. Just having the window unhidden on my mac will cause it to use 100% of the GPU displaying the spinner message. THE SPINNER MESSAGE CAUSES 100% GPU USAGE ON AN MBP M5!! So any time you're waiting on the model (which is 90% of the time), your fans will be blasting (careful, don't use it on battery). The issue is on github and close to 6 months old. Probably since…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
if we are at 10x with AI and near AGI or ASI, then how is it possible that these products (Codex, Claude Code CLI) are still such garbage? shouldn't this "agentic AI revolution" have long solved this already? no way they're over there saying "we are on it plz wait" or that "it's too much effort"?
If the code churn is high the investment to refactoring etc is less beneficial than may be obvious. I don't remember the details but I heard in some podcast that the code base of Claude Code changes so fast that any piece of code won't be there for long..
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A simple explanation is that they are "good enough" for most people and they have better things to do. Even if tomorrow I was 100 times as productive, I still wouldn't have time to do literally everything and I would have to prioritize.
You might not. But the Claude Code team has ONE job. And they have full access to a platform that they advertise as "humanity-threat" level good, and claim that it can automate everything code related...
Not that I'm happy with the current state of things, in fact I'm quite sad that improvements in capacity to do things doesn't translate into better quality.
Codex is one of the most infamous examples of slopware. Just having the window unhidden on my mac will cause it to use 100% of the GPU displaying the spinner message. THE SPINNER MESSAGE CAUSES 100% GPU USAGE ON AN MBP M5!! So any time you're waiting on the model (which is 90% of the time), your fans will be blasting (careful, don't use it on battery). The issue is on github and close to 6 months old. Probably since…
I agree, though Sam Altman's company is the last option I'd want to replace Claude with. I would sooner exhaust every open model.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you talk more in detail if possible and are allowed to do so? I do know one instance of someone literally losing a job because they vibe-coded their way to prod. Their response/justification was: "The code wasn't written by me. It was written by Claude/Chatgpt" They hadn't done anything to the database itself but you betcha that there are some horror stories involving database, lack of proper backups and Vibe-cod…
> "The code wasn't written by me. It was written by Claude/Chatgpt" Culturally (across all LLM use, not just programming) we need to nip that in the bud. If we don't it's going to be the new "someone hacked my social media password" get out of jail free card for avoiding responsibility. I don't care what tools you used, but if your name is on it, you're the author and the responsibility is yours. No "it wasn't me it…
I agree and I feel that that company in particular's response to that statement was also the same in terms of: you are responsible for your code no matter what and prompted to fire the engineer.
but there was also this dual level of hypocrisy from the company as well, in terms of asking the engineers to be 10x'd and putting pressures on it and internal lying by teams on how much productive they really are with AI and many other things in general.
I feel like engineers are within pressure of being asked to replace themselves within some (IMO) toxic workplaces by having the expectations of being 10x'd, something which previously was just an hyperbole but is now being expected as reality.
As much as I'd like to place the fault on that engineer isolated itself which in some sense you can consider that. I also think of it as a probability of a person like that existing.
Within the hyperfocused hyper-growth mentality without much safe-guards AI 10x agentic intent focused engineers (I have exhausted my AI vocabulary), the chances of a person like that existing simply rises magnitudes more which could probably be why I heard of a story like that in first place.
This might be one of the reasons I am worried about the hyper-focus on using AI as an everything tool or the investor/company focus on using AI for everything. I have said it elsewhere and I might say it again but if we treat AI as a hammer, then we need to stop treating everything as a screw and forcing/dog-feeding AI inside it, we need to treat a screw as a screw otherwise we will probably end up with some very messy foundations.
I would agree on you to have a cultural annotation on this being bad but unless we also add a cultural annotation on the last thing that I mentioned, I find it very hard to be achievable but I suppose that the last thing is what the AI companies and everyone is betting trillions of dollars on, on AI being used for everything and anything and I find it hard for the culture to be expected to change from top-down manner especially when its inverted and managers expect you to build things with AI given the investment.
There should be a balance and push-back from engineers alike, but as mitchell has said, even some really smart engineers who should know better are completely within AI psychosis and the philosophy of using AI as a hammer and hammering everything.
As such I would find it hard to create a cultural disturbance.
Would you like to know the disturbing part? When someone who worked at that company was honest and told higher-ups that they weren't being 10x'd by AI while all other engineers said that they were (they were in fact lying and working till 1 AM to finish the work as AI was ineffective). The management just treats this honest employee as the one ineffective and it has created a bit semi-toxic workplace for them. Imagine asking for cultural disturbance if everyone involved from top to bottom is involved in covering up for AI, because investors want to jump in on AI, and companies want that sweet investor money and management wants to satisfy the company and engineers want to keep their job and keep management happy and honest people get punished for being honest.
This got a bit long but this is everything wrong with AI. Not really the tech but rather everything around it.
I hope the culture around things get better but its an uphill battle.
on the other hand of things, I am optimistic because it seems that honesty would matter more when the bubble pops and everyone would become hopefully more selective on complete AI consumption or more intentional around it. (I am happy with developers building tools and prototypes that they previously couldn't have and even monetizing it somewhat, but just being honest and also more than capable of switching from slopware sunk costs. TLDR: being authentic/transparent.)