与「buggy」相关的搜索结果

this is my personal singularity moment this post may sound like a paid ad. I only wish. I'm concerned, more so than happy. the world is changing, and, among the scenarios where AI goes terribly wrong, inequality is the most realistic, yet, the one Anthropic seems to be the least concerned about. I'm glad OpenAI is taking the opposite stance: *personal AGI for everyone*. I think this is a commendable position in the times we live. but who am I in the queue of the bread? anyway, Fable is here, so I'll just report my first-hour experience first of all, all my pet prompts are solved. → λ-calculus puzzles → bug questions → one-shot apps all are trivial to it. I don't have anything harder other than my ongoing work so, in the last several days, I've been toying with HVM5, a new interaction net evaluator with a faster loop. after writing the first version, I left 32 GPT-5 agents working for ~20 hours each. this resulted in up to 2x speedups, but the file size increased by 2-fold and quality decreased significantly. I then simplified the whole thing into an even simpler core, and left Opus 4.8 and GPT 5.5 optimizing it for 8 hours. Opus got a legit 6% - 34% speedup in most benches. GPT got better results, but, sadly, an unusable file. I then asked Fable to optimize it. 2 hours later, it landed a 1770% speedup in one case, 100%+ in other 4, and 22% in average. yes, in 2 hours it outperformed me, opus 4.8 and a swarm of gpt 5.5 agents, by one order of magnitude. that could not possibly be legit. "it must be hardcoding the benchmarks" (GPT trauma). so I read its explanation and what it did was, indeed, the most high impact optimization one could try first. seems like HVM5 was wasting a lot of time garbage-collecting unused branches of pattern-match nodes. I had optimized that for static mats, but not for dynamic mats. skill issue. Fable figured how to do it for these, resulting in a massive speedup in some benches but wait, is that *correct*? I'm not sure yet, it is credible, but this is the kind of thing that is very easy to get wrong on interaction nets. the problem is, when I was ready to start auditing Fable's solution so I could tell whether it was buggy or legit, it interrupted me to tell me it had found a massive bug on the code *I* had written. ... wait, what? so... for garbage collection purposes, I stored a bit on lambda term pointers that meant "the variable bound by this lambda has been freed, so, its lambda must free whatever argument it is applied to". that's fine. yet, on duplicator nodes, I also used the same bit to mean "one of the duplicated variables was freed, so, treat this dup as a passthrough no-op". so, if a lambda entered a duplicator, it would mistake the lambda's collection bit for its own, resulting in corrupted interaction! that's a mouthful, why I'm writing this? just so you can appreciate the sheer absurdity of what just happened. I didn't ask it to find bugs. I asked it for an optimization. and even if I did ask it to find bugs, this bug is so astonishingly subtle and specific, identifying it takes mastering the domain to an extent that it beyond even me. I'd easily need hours or days to fix it, *if* I ever came across it. chances are it would just go unnoticed. and Fable found it and fixed it like it was nothing, while it was busy adding a 17x speedup to a file that neither I, nor Opus 4.8, nor a fleet of GPT 5.5 managed to barely make 2x faster. oh and there is also another tab where it is also ripping through Bend's codebase and finishing everything I had to do I don't know what to say anymore this isn't about Anthropic or OpenAI, this is about our collective future as a species. the world is changing, and we need to be aware of it, and discuss how to handle this change. receipt below . . .

"Even more bugs are inevitable, software is all going to become probabilistic now" is cope. "AI bug-finding means we have to embrace closed-source now" is a psyop. Writing buggy code has moved from hard to trivial. Writing secure code has moved from impossible to hard.

Is it weird that AI coding assistance is not giving me identity fracture? A lot of software developers are feeling disoriented and threatened these days. Programming by hand is clearly going the way of the buggy whip and the hand-cranked auger. Which is how we're finding out that a lot of people have their identities bound up in being good at hand-coding and how it feels to do that. That's not me. It's not me at all. Rather to my surprise, I don't miss coding by hand, not any more than I missed writing assembler when compilers ate the world and made that unnecessary. (That was in a couple years back around 1983, for you youngsters.) Maybe the fact that I'm not feeling any of this disorientation disqualifies me from having anything to say to people who are. On the other hand...if you can learn to emulate my mental stance and be completely unbothered, maybe that would be a good thing? So. If you're a programmer, and you're feeling disoriented, try this on for size: I like being a wizard. I like being able to speak spells, to weave complex patterns of logic that make things happen in the world. Writing code is a way to manifest my will. Yes, I've piled up a lot of arcane knowledge over the 50 years I've been doing this. But languages of invocation, they come and they go. Been a long time since I've had any use for being able to program in 8086 assembler, and that's okay. I have better spells now, and these days some rather powerful familiars. What I'm inviting you to do is think of yourself as a wizard. Not as a person who writes code, but as a person who is good at assuming the kind of mental states required to bend reality with the application of spells. And if that's who you are, does it matter if the spells are painstakingly scribed in runes of power, versus being spoken to an obedient machine spirit? It's all one; it's all the manifestation of will. Arcane languages come and go, machine spirits appear and then diminish to be replaced by more powerful ones, but you? You are the magic-wielder. Without you, none of it happens. Same as it ever was. Same is it ever was. And so mote it be.

这是我觉得最有价值的部分——摩擦分类。 它会识别你和 Claude 协作中的问题： 🤔 misunderstood_request - Claude 理解错了 🔄 wrong_approach - 方向对但方法错 🐛 buggy_code - 生成的代码有 bug 🚫 user_rejected_action - 你拒绝了操作 🧱 claude_got_blocked - Claude 卡住了 📈 excessive_changes - 改得太多 🐢 slow_or_verbose - 太慢或太啰嗦 ❓ user_unclear - 你的表达不够清楚 知道问题在哪，才能改进。

试了试 cc 新推出的 /insight 功能，总结的蛮有道理。其中 建议添加到 CLAUDE .md 这个功能非常有用，建议大家自己跑一次看看。 --- 关键模式: 你作为高速度独立创始人运作,发出快速的多任务指令,期望 Claude 自主执行,仅在采取错误方法时进行敏锐纠正。 你是一位极其高产、以运营为重的开发者,将 Claude Code 作为快速执行伙伴,处理复杂全栈产品。在短短 6 天内就有 39 个会话、504 条消息和 92 次提交(平均每天约 8 小时),你保持着无情的交付节奏。你的工作流程明显是多任务和中断驱动的 — 会话通常将 3-5 个不相关任务(bug 修复、部署、UI 调整、基础设施变更、计费集成)捆绑到单个对话中,当生产问题浮现或优先级变化时,你经常在会话中途转向。你不写详细的前期规范;相反,你发出简洁的指令,期望 Claude 搞清楚实现细节,在出错时介入纠正。例如,当 Claude 误解了你的演示示例功能(以为你想要实时执行而不是提供预先存在的文件),或者编辑了错误的 Dockerfile 时,你快速纠正并继续前进。 你的互动风格显示出对迭代的高容忍度,但对错误方法的低容忍度。你让 Claude 在直接任务上自主运行(Bash 是你最常用的工具,使用了 958 次,反映了对 Claude 在部署、服务器管理和调查方面的重度依赖),但当 Claude 调查错误根本原因或做出错误假设时,你会敏锐地介入 — 如 Claude 反复追查视频渲染 bug 的错误原因而不是听你清楚解释,或者它试图启动 localhost 服务器而不是检查你已经运行的应用程序时。摩擦数据讲述了一个清晰的故事:"错误方法"(34 个实例)和"buggy 代码"(29 个实例)是你最大的痛点,它们源于你推动的变更的巨大数量和速度。你本质上是在和 Claude 作为工程团队一起运行单人冲刺,级联 bug(如导致卷数据丢失的沙箱路由修复,或覆盖 codeben 的错误项目部署)是这种速度的代价。 尽管存在摩擦,你始终将会话评为有帮助并持续使用 — 128 个"可能满意"的评分主导你的满意度概况。你的主要领域是涉及沙箱、AI 代理、Stripe 计费和视频处理的 TypeScript 密集型 SaaS 产品,你最依赖 Claude 进行 bug 修复(28 个目标)和多文件更改(18 次成功)。你很少要求解释或规划 — 只有 6 个"信息查询"目标和 2 个"良好解释"成功 — 强化了你将 Claude 用作实际执行者而非顾问的事实。当事情出错时,你的本能是推进另一个修复,而不是退后重新架构。

本日は兵庫ROCKAWAY BUGGYでにて 猫集会です🐈🐈‍⬛🐾 終演後はVIPチェキ撮影がありますので 時間がとてもタイトになります。 物販購入希望の方は前物販メインにお立ち寄りくださると助かります！ ご協力よろしくお願いいたします🙇‍♀️

10月18日(土)ROCKAWAY BUGGYで 開催される猫集会のオープニングアクトで 釧路でご一緒した、秋葉令奈さんと初めましてですが橋本菜津美さんと、コラボを一曲させていただく事になりましたヽ(´▽｀)/ また来年も続くであろう、年内最後のお寺ライブの京都もよろしくお願いします🙇‍♀️

【猫集会グッズお知らせ】 10月18日(土)兵庫ROCKAWAY BUGGY 『猫集会』定期イベント 10月19日(日)京都　一念寺 『十六夜の夜』お寺ツアーライブ お寺ライブの物販も残り僅かとなりました！オーダーブレスレット京都限定カラーはラピスラズリの青です！ よろしくお願いいたします🙇‍♀️

お知らせ 10月18日(土）に予定しております 『気まぐれにゃイトVol.2　猫集会』ですが 店舗の都合により、同じ兵庫県川西市にあります、別の会場にて急遽変更させていただくことになりました。 皆様には大変ご迷惑、御不備をお掛け致し ますがよろしくお願いいたします。 変更会場↓ ROCKAWAY BUGGY