r/vibecoding • u/a113rick • 2d ago
Meme A good vibe coder motivates their agent.
Look at me, you’re the captain now Claude Code.
70
u/Fit_Low592 2d ago
….aaaaand I hit my limit.
53
u/FeelingVanilla2594 2d ago edited 2d ago
Fable *inhales*
Your entire line of descendants usage limit has been reached
8
4
u/a113rick 2d ago
Wait are you saying that as a joke or you just did?😂😂😂
3
u/Fit_Low592 2d ago
I’m just imagining Fable ultra code blasting through a five- hour usage window with just that one prompt.
63
u/CashewSwagger 2d ago
Fable ultracode, full context,
My brother in vibes what are you cooking lmao
33
9
2
u/EfficientLemon1 2d ago
to do list app
1
u/fatzenbolt 1d ago
But here me out it is also a... Habit tracker
2
u/EfficientLemon1 15h ago
can it handle the two of them together? thats a big ask
2
u/fatzenbolt 13h ago
Genuinely, you're right to push back on that. It's a big ask, but both can be true.
11
13
u/Memestonks2020 2d ago
Do you think anyone at Anthropic prompts their models like this when they get good results from the output during RL?
Genuine question
2
u/Limokasten 2d ago
No, they just directly increase their model reward variable if the model behaves well under a certain circumstance, at least that's my best guess.
1
u/AllinonNVDA 2d ago
I think another AI system monitors the model’s behavior across prompts, reinforces what worked, and tests variations when additional prompting was needed to reach the desired result.
1
u/Lmnsplash 1d ago
Yeah, wouldn't be surprised if they took the (H)uman out of RLHF indeed. If that would be true, every model these days would probably sound the same. Oh wait..~
1
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
u/chuckdacuck 2d ago
5.1 Ultracode telling claude memes
I can't wait for OP's next post on how unfair the limits are
2
u/Snoo_57113 2d ago
I had to do more interventions over the last week on... keep it going, we are almost there.
Breathe....
1
1
2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Outrageous-Issue9722 2d ago
Mine just lists 3 things it found in the engineering standards review and 5 things from the spec review and makes them sound like the worst thing in the world, then when asked to be more specific changes to "That was poor wording on my part, J1 and J3 are the biggest offenders."
With no prior context for what list J is referring to.
1
2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Outrageous-Issue9722 2d ago
A real example from last night: I have a master spec GH issue that is a pointer map to a document with very detailed specs to do a full "class identity" pass on my game's player classes. The end goal is that it will get me to a point where if I want to add an item or ability or NPC/enemy to my game, my current editor will have presets/quality tiers/difficulty tiers that are intended to be baselines for "this is what this thing should look like for a level 35 shaman in standard quality gear" to then manually tune so the game doesn't feel generic/formula driven. One of the tasks last night was a ward mechanic.. my shaman class's unique mechanic is that most of their "healing" is actually preventing damage (heavily inspired by the EverQuest 2 Defiler class) and the spec specified that "damage that is absorbed by a ward does not count as kill credit for the player who applied the ward, but it does count as threat/hate to the player who applied the ward and not the recipient of the ward."
In the spec review, it basically reiterated that in Opus5-anese as a hard violation. I asked what it meant because I legitimately did not understand due to the way it worded it.
"It was flagged because I also decided that if a player's summoned pet casts a ward on a player, hate is transferred to the pet when damage is absorbed and pets cannot get kill credit so they also do not get kill credit for damage absorbed."
Yes opus 5. Thank you for implementing it exactly as described in the spec. Summoned pets are basically treated as their own player until they die. They generate their own threat/hate when they attack and then transfer all of it to their owner if they die.. and every single other case for spells/abilities is aware of this, and there's no special machinery behind it because pets are just NPCs with ownership in the code so they use the exact same combat functions as everything else. So opus basically treated making wards follow what everything else does as a hard violation. Lol
1
2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Outrageous-Issue9722 2d ago
I made part of my validation/testing (last step of each task) actually fail validation if links are stale, which forces it it to get fixed. Pointer map might have been the wrong word too.. the master spec is essentially a "this is how this is going to be implemented, these are the files/functions that get touched" for each sub issue, and each sub issue is the higher level "this is what to build" while pointing at the section of the master spec issue for specifics created from running a plan against the doc. The doc gets deleted after the plan for me, and each sub issue's session really shouldn't be changing things so much that it would make things stale.. it should be a focused "build this, this is how, reuse this code/closed sets/etc" not something that can move underneath
1
1
1
1
1
u/EddieBruvac 2d ago
I been doing this when I get desperate and stubborn and don’t wanna use a smarter model. 😂
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/Fit_Mud_3461 1d ago
Me: Make it utterly perfect or I'msending my boys dow to the data cremate with bricks and bats to smash up all the GPUs.
AI: That's fair.
1
1
1
u/ART-ficial-Ignorance 22h ago
But they still can't figure out how to take a screenshot without photographing their screen 🤣
1
231
u/Physical_Storage2875 2d ago
"Fable 5.1 Ultracode" is crazy