We put a coding agent in a while loop

There will be a a new kind of job for software engineers, sort of like a cross between working with legacy code and toxic site cleanup.

Like back in the day being brought in to “just fix” a amalgam of FoxPro-, Excel-, and Access-based ERP that “mostly works” and only “occasionally corrupts all our data” that ambitious sales people put together over last 5 years.

But worse - because “ambitious sales people” will no longer be constrained by sandboxes of Excel or Access - they will ship multi-cloud edge-deployed kubernetes micro-services wired with Kafka, and it will be harder to find someone to talk to understand what they were trying to do at the time.

> After finishing the port, most of the agents settled for writing extra tests or continuously updating agent/TODO.md to clarify how "done" they were. In one instance, the agent actually used pkill to terminate itself after realizing it was stuck in an infinite loop.

Ok, now that is funny! On so many levels.

Now, for the project itself, a few thoughts:

- this was tried before, about 1.5 years ago there was a project setup to spam github with lots of "paper implementations", but it was based on gpt3.5 or 4 or something, and almost nothing worked. Their results are much better.

- surprised it worked as well as it did with simple prompts. "Probably we're overcomplicating stuff". Yeah, probably.

- weird copyright / IP questions all around. This will be a minefield.

- Lots of SaaS products are screwed. Not from this, but from this + 10 engineers in every midsized company. NIH is now justified.

There are always two major results from any software development process: a change in the code and a change in cognition for the people who wrote the code (whether they did so directly or with an LLM).

Python and Typescript are elaborate formal languages that emerged from a lengthy process of development involving thousands of people around the world over many years. They are non-trivially different, and it's neat that we can port a library from one to the other quasi-automatically.

The difficulty, from an economic perspective, is that the "agent" workflow dramatically alters the cognitive demands during the initial development process. It is plain to see that the developers who prompted an LLM to generate this library will not have the same familiarity with the resulting code that they would have had they written it directly.

For some economic purposes, this altering of cognitive effort, and the dramatic diminution of its duration, probably doesn't matter.

But my hunch is that most of the economic value of code is contingent on there being a set of human beings familiar with the code in a manner that requires writing having written it directly.

Denial of this basic reality was an economic problem even before LLMs: how often did churn in a development team result in a codebase that no one could maintain, undermining the long-term prospects of a firm?

Nice. Check out https://ghuntley.com/ralph to learn more about Ralph. It's currently building a Gen-Z esoteric programming language and porting the standard library from Go to the Cursed programming language. The compiler is working, I'm just finishing up the touches of the standard library before launching.

The language is called Cursed.

There's a lot of "it kind of worked" in here.

If we actually want stuff that works, we need to come up with a new process. If we get "almost" good code from a single invocation, you just going to get a lot of almost good code from a loop. What we likely need is a Cucumberesque format with example tables for requirements that we can distill an AI to use. It will build the tests and then build the code to to pass the tests.

Starting to think of this quote more and more:

"This business will get out of control. It will get out of control and we'll be lucky to live through it."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZuMe5RvxPQ&t=22s

I wanted to know how much it cost?

I would be scared to run this without knowing the exact cost.

Its not a good idea to do it without a payment cap for sure, its a new way to wake up with a huge bill the next day.

AGI was just 1 bash for loop away all this time I guess. Insane project.

I’ve done a few ports like this with Claude Code (but not with a while loop) and it did work amazingly well. The original codebase had a good test suite, so I had it port the test suite first, and gave it some code style guidance up front. Then the agent did remarkably well at doing a straight port from one imperative language to another. Then there’s some purely human work to get it really done — 80-90% done sounds about right.

I would love to fix my docs with this. I have them in the main browser-use repo. What do you recommend that the agent does never push to main browser-use, but only to its own branch?

Does anyone else get dull feelings of dread reading this kind of thing? How do you combat it?

> In one instance, the agent actually used pkill to terminate itself after realizing it was stuck in an infinite loop.

The alexandrian solution to the halting problem.