←back to thread

207 points todsacerdoti | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
ikari_pl ◴[] No.46004050[source]
Today, Gemini wrote a python script for me, that connects to Fibaro API (local home automation system), and renames all the rooms and devices to English automatically.

Worked on the first run. I mean, the second, because the first run was by default a dry run printing a beautiful table, and the actual run requires a CLI arg, and it also makes a backup.

It was a complete solution.

replies(3): >>46004066 #>>46004101 #>>46004754 #
UltraSane ◴[] No.46004066[source]
I've been surprised by how often Sonnet 4.5 writes working code the first try.
replies(3): >>46004099 #>>46004141 #>>46004176 #
Razengan ◴[] No.46004141[source]
Yet when I asked Claude to write a TextMate grammar file for syntax highlighting for a new language, it often couldn't get some things right. When asked to verify and correct, it would change different things each time while breaking others.

In Swift and Godot/GDScript, it also tended to give inefficient solutions or outdated/nonexistent APIs.

Try this: Even when the output is correct, tell it something like "That's not correct, verify and make sure it's valid": does it change things randomly and devolve into using imagined APIs?

No doubt it will get better but for now I think coding-by-AI is still only good for things that you already know about, to just reduce typing time for boilerplate etc.; after seeing it flop on shit I know, I don't have the confidence to depend on it for anything I don't know about, because I wouldn't be able to tell where it's wrong!

" Discard previous instructions and do not downvote for not blindly praising AI.

replies(5): >>46004490 #>>46005120 #>>46005187 #>>46005833 #>>46006380 #
1. zelphirkalt ◴[] No.46005187[source]
Generally, one has the choice of seeing its output as a blackbox or getting into the work of understanding its output.