←back to thread

Getting AI to write good SQL

(cloud.google.com)
478 points richards | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.196s | source
Show context
zeroq ◴[] No.44011740[source]
Every once in a while I've been trying AI, since everyone and their mother told me to, so I comply.

My recent endevour was with Gemini 2.5:

  - Write me a simple todo app on cloudflare with auth0 authentication.
  - Here's a simple todo on cloudflare. We import the @auth0-cloudflare and...
  - Does that @auth0-cloudflare exists?
  - Oh, it doesn't. I can give you a walkthrough on how to set up an account on auth0. Would you like me to?
  - Yes, please.
  - Here. I'm going to write the walkthrough in a document... (proceed to create an empty document)
  - That seems to be an empty document.
  - Oh, my bad. I'll produce it once more. (proceed to create another empty document)
  - Seems like you're md parsing library is broken, can you write it in chat instead?
  - Yes... (your gemini trial has expired, would you like to pay $100 to continue?)
replies(2): >>44012230 #>>44012287 #
e3bc54b2 ◴[] No.44012230[source]
The worse part is not even being trolled at AI roundabout. The worse part is gaslighting by people who then go on to imply that I'm dumb to not be able to 'guide' the model 'towards the solution', whatever the fuck that means. And this is after telling me that model is so smart to just know what I want.

Claude and Gemini are pretty decent at providing a small and tight function definition with well defined parameters and output, but anything big and it starts losing shit left and right.

All vibecoding sessions I've seen have been pretty dead easy stuff with lot of boilerplate, maybe I'm weird for just not writing a lot of boilerplate and rely on well-built expressive abstractions..

replies(2): >>44012291 #>>44012733 #
Kiro ◴[] No.44012733[source]
You're the one doing the gaslighting now. "It doesn't work for me, therefore it can't possibly work for anyone else."
replies(2): >>44013583 #>>44013600 #
codr7 ◴[] No.44013583[source]
Which is a very reasonable conclusion given the kinds of errors it makes.

Why are you so defensive about the tech?

Involved in any AI startups, perhaps?

replies(2): >>44014012 #>>44019702 #
1. ◴[] No.44019702[source]