They might also ask why a bunch of static CSS inside a bunch of JavaScript is hiding inside __init__.py[0] - hopefully before trying to fix some detail of the CSS.

(I'm surprised to see it actually, since my own use of Claude has mostly yielded well-structured code. But I'm not doing proper vibe-coding, more like friendly Socratic arguing with another engineer who happens to be a robot.)

[0] https://github.com/datasette/datasette-agent/blob/main/datas...

Seems like this model delivers on what has already been scaling quite nicely, which is the length and complexity of the requested tasks, but isn't such a big improvement on what hasn't been scaling so far - common sense, discernment, good judgement.

This is exactly right. By offloading this trivial task to the LLM, Simon has abandoned the opportunity to evaluate the abstraction with additional information and improve it. Instead, we let the agent spend $12 and make the fix while learning nothing.

I think Fable is predisposed to try and verify it's changes. Which is a very good thing. It takes a lot of prompts to get Opus to do what Fable does unprompted.

That is exactly what I would want from a junior developer - make sure the bug exists, find a way to fix it, verify the bug is fixed.

The problem, as was correctly identified in the blog post - is that instead of stopping and asking for elevated permission it relentlessly tries to find a hack on it's own. (An equivalent situation for a human developer would be needing some access to a third-party sandbox, and instead of asking a senior for credentials, tries to setup his own sandbox from scratch)

I misread your comment at first and thought you were insulting Simon Willison, rather than calling Claude Fable a bad developer, and so I'm commenting here to clarify it in case others also misread it.

That first sentence threw me off.

Anyway, I'm glad he spent the $12 because this blog post was highly informative.

This is the worst thing about current AI agents. They never ask questions. The prompt has to be pixel perfect and unambiguous or they'll happily run away doing something ridiculous.

Yes I agree, the solution committed is horrible, but nobody cares any more. We have entered a very strange parallel universe where because AI can work things out it's easier to take solutions that are sub optimal and just churn out (potentially) buggy features.

This is missing the point, simon is a fantastic developer. but to keep track of all the nuances of the frontend frameworks and browser implementation is a lot even for great people.

it is really awesome that the final change was only a two line css change.

You missed what I think is the most interesting question: why does the bug appear in Safari macOS but not in Firefox, Chrome, or WebKit running inside of Playwright?

(Dozens of people in this thread implying that any web dev should have known to solve it with overflow-x: hidden and not one of them have addressed that browser difference yet.)

The 'better' fixes are often for our (human) benefit. These messy fixes serve the AI companies' interests of creating messes that need even more tokens (money) later. Bad and self-serving developers also act the same, creating tech debt

[dead]