undefined | Better HN

0 pointsminimaxir1mo ago0 comments

I never claimed Opus 4.5 can one-shot things? Even human-written software takes a few iterations to add/polish new features as they come to mind.

> And you clearly “broke” the model a few times based on your prompt log where the model was unable to solve the problem given with the spec.

That's less due to the model being wrong and more due to myself not knowing what I wanted because I am definitely not a UI/UX person. See my reply in the sibling thread.

0 comments

Denzel1mo ago

Apologies, I may have misinterpreted the passage below from your repo:

> This crate was developed with the assistance of Claude Opus 4.5 initially to answer the shower thought "would the Braille Unicode trick work to visually simulate complex ball physics in a terminal?" Opus 4.5 one-shot the problem, so I decided to further experiment to make it more fun and colorful.

Also, yes, I don’t dispute that human written software takes iteration as well. My point is that the significance of autonomous agentic coding feels exaggerated if I’m holding the LLM’s hand more than I have to hold a senior engineer’s hand.

That doesn’t mean the tech isn’t valuable. The claims just feel over exaggerated.

minimaxirOP1mo ago

If you click the video that line links to, it one-shot the original problem as very explicitly defined as a PoC, not the entire project. The final project shipped is substantially different, and that's the difference between YOLO vibecoding and creating something useful.

There's also the embarrassing corner physics bugs present in that video, which was something that required a fix in the first few prompts.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse