Programming

26482 readers

253 users here now

Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!

Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.

Hope you enjoy the instance!

Rules

Follow the programming.dev instance rules
Keep content related to programming in some way
If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos

Wormhole

Follow the wormhole through a path of communities !webdev@programming.dev

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

snowe@programming.dev

Ategon@programming.dev

UlrikHD@programming.dev

bugsmith@programming.dev

Spyro@programming.dev

217

I just tried vibe coding with Claude (programming.dev)

submitted 2 days ago by entwine@programming.dev to c/programming@programming.dev

118 comments fedilink hide all child comments

...and I still don't get it. I paid for a month of Pro to try it out, and it is consistently and confidently producing subtly broken junk. I had tried doing this before in the past, but gave up because it didn't work well. I thought that maybe this time it would be far along enough to be useful.

The task was relatively simple, and it involved doing some 3d math. The solutions it generated were almost write every time, but critically broken in subtle ways, and any attempt to fix the problems would either introduce new bugs, or regress with old bugs.

I spent nearly the whole day yesterday going back and forth with it, and felt like I was in a mental fog. It wasn't until I had a full night's sleep and reviewed the chat log this morning until I realized how much I was going in circles. I tried prompting a bit more today, but stopped when it kept doing the same crap.

The worst part of this is that, through out all of this, Claude was confidently responding. When I said there was a bug, it would "fix" the bug, and provide a confident explanation of what was wrong... Except it was clearly bullshit because it didn't work.

I still want to keep an open mind. Is anyone having success with these tools? Is there a special way to prompt it? Would I get better results during certain hours of the day?

For reference, I used Opus 4.6 Extended.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] lichtmetzger@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

I’ve built things that used to take 20 weeks in 1 week with Claude.

That's ridiculous. You've either been a bad coder even before the AI hype or you're simply lying. I have used these tools and they're not that good or make you that fast - except when you're just merging all of the proposed code blind and hope for the best. I fear for the future colleagues who will have to work with the raging dumpster fire you have created for them.

The company with the strongest coding LLM is Anthropic and it doesn’t sound like they’re having financial difficulty

Oh yes, they have the same problems OpenAI has. Just look into the vibecoding subreddits, you can see many people complaining about excessive rate limits and their models getting dumber. A healthy company wouldn't try to put a cap on the token useage and introduce peak-hour throttling, that's a big warning sign that they're overspending as well.

its hard to deny the reality at this point

I only see one person here denying reality. You will be effed in a major way when your employer one day decides that the subscriptions are too expensive or tell you to limit your token useage.

[–] favoredponcho@lemmy.zip 0 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (1 children)

I know it is a big change and will take some time to come to terms with it. But, it is here. I’m not going to argue anymore. It’s pointless.

[–] lichtmetzger@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 hour ago

Did you just pull a random infographic out of your ass without even mentioning the source? I reverse-searched it and it comes from Anthropic, of all places - the guys that run Claude Code.

Forbes took a look at that study, I love this money quote from it:

These flaws turn Anthropic’s dataset into an overstated labor-market conclusion. The study’s findings do not have the level of reliability required to sustain the breadth of the headline framing, because each conclusion rests on an exposure measure whose scope (1), construction (2, 3, 4, 5, 7), and interpretation (6, 8, 9, 10) remain contested.

So yeah, an AI company telling us that AI will theoretically replace our jobs, based on their own study with flawed data - damn, that's trustworthy! /s

I’m not going to argue anymore. It’s pointless.

At least on this point we agree.