Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Earlier this week ChatGPT found (self-conscious as I am of the personification of this phrasing) a place where I'd accidentally overloaded a member function by unintentionally giving it the name of something from a parent class, preventing the parent class function from ever being run and causing <bug>.

After walking through a short debugging session where it tried the four things I'd already thought of and eventually suggested (assertively but correctly) where the problem was, I had a resolution to my problem.

There are a lot of questions I have around how this kind of mistake could simply just be avoided at a language level (parent function accessibility modifiers, enforcing an override specifier, not supporting this kind of mistake-prone structure in the first place, and so on...). But it did get me unstuck, so in this instance it was a decent, if probabilistic, rubber duck.



> it [...] suggested (assertively but correctly) where the problem was

> it was a decent, if probabilistic, rubber duck

How is it a rubber duck if it suggested where the problem was?

Isn't a rubber duck a mute object which you explain things to, and in the process you yourself figure out what the solution is?




Consider applying for YC's Fall 2026 batch! Applications are open till July 27.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: