Posts in category "AI"

Given I'm almost certainly going to drop GitHub Copilot starting next month, I'm using Gemini CLI more and more for BlogMore. Yesterday evening, I used it to plan out an idea for a change to the application. Now that I've migrated all images to WebP, I thought it might be interesting to look at the idea of having a responsive approach to images. This is something I don't know a whole lot about (never having needed to bother with it before), but it also happens that I need to read up on this anyway for something related to the day job; given this, it felt like a good time to experiment.

Together with Gemini CLI a plan was created.

This morning, over second coffee, I've kicked off the job of implementing it and, honestly, Gemini CLI is really struggling. It "implemented" the change pretty quickly, within minutes, but it just plain didn't work. Since then I've had it iterate over the issue four times and now it's struggling to make it work at all. It's still beavering away on this as I type, and consuming daily quota at a fair rate too.

So, while I still have GitHub Copilot, this feels like a good point to play them off against each other at least one more time. Having saved the plan Gemini wrote last night as an issue, I've assigned it to Copilot (using Claude Sonnet 4.6). As I type this, I have Gemini racing to get this working in a terminal window behind Emacs, meanwhile there's Claude doing its thing in GitHub's cloud.

It'll be interesting to see if Copilot manages to one-shot this, for sure Gemini is far off a one-shot implementation.

As I've mentioned a few times recently, I'm using Google's Gemini CLI more at the moment; in part because I have a Gemini Pro account so it makes sense to use it, but also in anticipation of dropping anything to do with Copilot.

While I've had some troubles with it -- as can be seen here, here and here for example -- I'm mostly having an okay time. The code it writes isn't too bad, and while it seems to need a little more direction and overseeing than I've been used to while using Copilot/Claude, it generally seems to arrive at sensible solutions for the problems I'm throwing at it¹.

One difference with working with Copilot CLI that I have noticed, however, is that Gemini doesn't seem to care for cleaning up after itself. When faced with a problem it'll often write a test program or two, perhaps even create a subdirectory to hold some test data, run the tests and be sure about the outcome. This is good to see. It's not unusual for me to do this myself (or at least in the REPL anyway). But it really doesn't seem to care to actually clean up those tests. A handful of times now I've had it leave those files and directories kicking around. I've even said to it "please clean up your test files" and it's gone right ahead and done so, which suggests it "knows" what it did and what it should do.

This also feels like a new source of mess for all the people who commit their executables and the like to their repositories. That should be fun.

The thing I don't know or understand, at least at the moment, is if this is down to the CLI harness itself, or the choice of model, or a combination of both, or something else. I'm curious to know more.

Another evening, and another period of Gemini CLI getting stuck thinking. So this time I thought I'd try something: cancel it while it was thinking and change the model.

I was working on something new for BlogMore and, sure enough, after a wee while, we got stuck in "Thinking..." mode. So I hit Escape and asked to pick a different model. I chose to pick manually, and went with gemini-3.1-pro-preview.

I then literally asked that it carry on where it left off...

...and it did! It worked. No more sitting around thinking for ages.

Watching the quota after doing this, it looks like the model I was using ate quota faster, but that was worth it given I've never come close to hitting full quota with Gemini CLI.

Once the immediate job was done, I went back to auto and it worked for a bit, only to get stuck thinking again. I repeated this process and it did the trick a second time. From now on I'm going to use this approach.

It does, again, highlight how unreliable these tools are, but at least I've found a workaround that works for now.

Well, it's here: GitHub's tool to let you see how much better off you're going to be under the new Copilot billing system that comes in next month. It's... something.

But let's set the background first. I'm here (in Copilot usage space) as an observer, spending time on an experiment that started with the free pro tier and then transitioned into the "okay, I'll play along for $10 a month, the tool I'm building is fun to work on and is useful to me" phase. I doubted it would last forever -- the price was obviously too good to be true for too long -- but I wasn't expecting it to collapse quite so soon and in quite such a spectacular way.

When GitHub announced the move to usage-based billing I was curious to see if I'd be better off or worse off. It was hard to call really. My use of Copilot is sporadic, and as BlogMore has started to settle down and reach a state approaching feature-saturation the need to do heavy work on it has reduced. I did use it a fair bit last month, but that was more in tinkering and experimenting mode rather than full development mode¹, so it's probably a good measure.

Checking the details on GitHub, it looks like I used a touch under 1/3 of my premium requests.

It also looks like the usage came in a couple of bursts lasting a few days, with a pretty flat period in the middle of the month.

So, technically, GitHub won. I paid them $10 for 300 premium requests, I left a touch over 2/3 unused. I think it's fair to suggest that I'm a pretty lightweight user, even when I have a project under active development.

This is where the new usage-based preview tool comes in. Launched yesterday, it lets you take your existing usage stats and see how much it would have really cost you.

The app itself comes over as being hastily spat out with an agent and little communication between responsible teams. You'd think you just press a button when viewing some historical usage figures and get a display that shows you what it would cost under the new approach.

You'd think.

Nope. First you generate your report for a particular month. Then have to ask for it to be emailed to you as a CSV!

Even that part isn't super reliable. When I tried it last night it took a wee while to turn up, and that was after about 10 attempts where I got an error message saying it couldn't generate the report. This morning I tried again and I've yet to see the email, 30 minutes later².

Having done that you click through to another page/app where you have to upload the CSV, to GitHub, that GitHub just sent you in an email. Brilliant. It then gives you the good news.

So what is my 1/3 use of the premium request allowance going to save me under the new approach to billing?

Amazing. I especially like the part where they spin it as: if I spent $39/month with them I would save money!

I guess I should take comfort that I'm not that one Reddit user whose $39 April would really have cost them almost $6,000³.

Watching this journey has been wild. The free Pro as a taster to get me onto $10/month I can go with, that's fair enough. For the longest time I never even paid it any attention. But watching GitHub give it to so many people, and especially so many students, and then watching them do shocked Pikachu when it cost them an arm and a leg and probably caused the degradation of the performance of their systems... who could possibly have seen this coming? Impossible to predict.

Back when I first wrote about my initial impressions of working with Copilot I wondered in the conclusion if I'd transition to a paying version of Copilot. I obviously did. At $10/month it was a very affordable tinker toy that gave me a new dimension to the hobby side of my love of creating things with code. But the prospect of paying $39/month for something in the region of 1/3 of requests that I had before: nah, I'm not into that.

It looks like this month will be the last month I keep a Copilot subscription. BlogMore will carry on being developed, I'll probably transition to leaning on Gemini CLI more (as I have been the last week anyway), and also start to get my hands dirty with the code more too.

This feels like one of the early signs of the bait and switch that the AI suppliers have been building up all along. Experimenting and better understanding how and why people use these tools has been seriously useful, and I can't help but feel that I accidentally started at just the right moment. Watching this happen, with actual experience of what's going on, is very educational. It's going to be super interesting to see if this same stunt gets pulled on a bigger scale, with all the companies that uncritically embraced AI at every level of their organisation.

It's going to be especially interesting to watch the AI leaders in those companies to see how they spin this, if and when the real costs are more widely applied.

Having had Copilot crash out the other day, while working on the linter for BlogMore, I decided to lean into Gemini CLI a little more and see how that got on.

When I first tried it out, a week back, I found it worked fairly well but could be rather slow at times. On the whole though, I found it easy enough to work with; the results weren't too bad, even if it could throw out some mildly annoying code at times.

Yesterday evening though, because of the failure of Copilot, I decided to go just with Gemini and work on the problem of speeding up BlogMore. This worked really well. I found that it followed instructions well¹ when given them, and also did a good job of applying what it was told, constantly, without needing to be told again. I actually found I had a bit of a flow going (in the minimal way that you can get any sort of flow going when you're not hand-coding).

Using it, I tackled all the main bottlenecks in BlogMore and got things working a lot faster (at this point it's generating a site in about 1/4 of the time it used to take). By the time that work was done, I wanted to do some last tidying up.

This was where it suddenly got unreliable. I asked it a simple question, not even tasking it with something to do, and it went into "Thinking..." mode and never came back out of it. I seem to remember I gave it 10 minutes and then cancelled the request.

After that I tried again with a different question, having quit the program and started it again with --resume. This time I asked it a different question and the same thing happened. I hit cancel again and then, a moment later, finally got an answer to the previous question.

From this point onwards I could barely ever get a reply out of it. I even tried quitting and starting up again without --resume, only for the same result.

A quick search turns up reports similar to this issue on Reddit, Google's support forums and on GitHub. It looks like I'm not alone in running into this.

This here is one of the things that concerns me about the idea of ever adopting agents as the primary tool for getting code written: the unreliability of their availability, and so the resulting inconsistency of the output. It feels like any perceived win in terms of getting the code written is going to be lost in the frustration of either waiting and trying again when it just gives up playing along, or in running from one agent to another, hoping you find the one that is capable of working with you at that given moment.

Meanwhile folk talk like it's the solution to the problem of software development. It's especially concerning when those folk are in "engineering leadership" or a position with a similar name. When they talk like this they are either displaying a lack of foresight, or betraying a lack of care for the craft they are supposed to represent (amongst other reasons).

It's very timely that this post from Rob Pike popped up in my feed this morning:

Although trained in physics, I worked in the computing industry with pride and purpose for over 40 years. And now I can do nothing but sit back and watch it destroy itself for no valid reason beyond hubris (if I'm being charitable).

Ineffable sadness watching something I once loved deliberately lose its soul.

Yup.

At the moment I'm working on a linting command for BlogMore. Having given up on Copilot/Claude for this, I've been having quite a bit of success with Gemini CLI. But while doing this, I've noticed some odd things with it. It does have this habit of cargo-culting some changes, or just rewriting code that doesn't need it.

For example, the tests for the new linting tool: it keeps adding import pytest near the top of the test file despite the fact that pytest doesn't get used anywhere in the code. Every time, I'll remove it, every time it adds more tests, it'll add it back.

Another thing I've noticed is it seems to be obsessed with adding indentation to empty lines. So, if you've got a line of code indented 8 spaces, then an empty line, then another line of code indented 8 spaces, it'll add 8 spaces on that empty line. That sort of thing annoys the hell out of me¹.

But the worst thing I just ran into was this. It had written this bit of code:

def lint_site(site_config: SiteConfig) -> int:
    """Convenience function to run the linter.

    Args:
        site_config: The site configuration.

    Returns:
        0 if no errors, 1 if errors were found.
    """
    linter = Linter(site_config)
    return linter.lint()

On the surface this seems fine: a function that hides just a little bit of detail while providing a simple function interface to a feature. But that use of a variable to essentially "discard" it the next line... nah. I dislike that sort of thing. The code can be just a little more elegant. So seeing this I edited it to be (removing the docstring for the purposes of this post):

def lint_site(site_config: SiteConfig) -> int:
    return Linter(site_config).lint()

Nice and tidy.

I then had Gemini work on something else in the linting code. What did I see towards the end of the diff? This!

Sneaky little shit!

Now, sure, the idea is you review all changes before you run with them, but knowing that it's likely that any given change might rewrite parts of the code that aren't related to the problem at hand adds a lot more overhead, and I wonder how often people using these tools even bother.

At some point this morning I was looking for something on this blog and stumbled on a post that had a broken link. Not an external link, but an internal link. This got me thinking: perhaps I should add some sort of linting tool to BlogMore? I figured this should be doable using much of the existing code: pretty much work out the list of internal links, run through all pages and posts, see what links get generated, look for internal links¹, and see if they're all amongst those that are expected.

Later on in the day I prompted Copilot to have a go. Now, sure, I didn't tell it how to do it, instead I told it what I wanted it to achieve. I hoped it would (going via Claude, as I've normally let it) decide on what I felt was the most sensible solution (use the existing configuration-reading, page/post-finding and post-parsing code) and run with that.

It didn't.

Once again, as I've seen before, it seemed to understand and take into account the existing codebase and then copy bits from it and drop it in a new file. Worse, rather than tackle this using the relevant parts of the existing build engine, it concocted a whole new approach, again obsessing over throwing a regex or three at the problem.

I then spent the next 90 minutes or so, testing the results, finding false reports, finding things it missed, and telling it what I found and getting it to fix them. It did, but on occasion it seemed to special-case the fix rather than understand the general case of what was going on and address that.

Eventually, probably too late really, I gave up trying to nudge it in the right direction and, instead, decided it was time to be more explicit about how it should handle this². The first thing that bothered me was that it seemed to ignore the configuration object. Where BlogMore has a method of loading the configuration into an object, which can be passed around the code, but with the linter it loaded it up, pulled it all apart, and then passed some of the values as a huge parameter list. Because... reasons?

Anyway, I told it to cut that shit out and prompted it about a few other things that looked pretty bad too. Copilot/Claude went off and worked away on this for a while, using up my 6th premium request of the session, and then eventually came back with an error telling me I'd hit a rate limit and to come back in a few hours.

Could I have got it to where I wanted to be a bit earlier, with more careful prompting? No doubt. Will a lot of people? I suspect that's rather unlikely. This is one of the many things that make me pretty sceptical about this as the tool some sell it as, at least for the moment. I see often that it's written about or talked about as if it's a really useful coding buddy. It can be, at times, but it's hugely unreliable. Here I'm testing it by building something as a hobby, and I'm doing so knowing that there's no real consequence if it craps out on me. I'm also doing it safe in the knowledge that I could write the code myself, albeit at a far slower pace and with less available time. Not everyone this is aimed at has that going for them.

But these tools are still sold like they're the most reliable coding buddies going.

All that said: having hit the rate limit, and having squandered six premium requests on the problem with no real progress, I decided to use my Google Gemini coding allowance instead (which, in my experience so far, seems pretty generous). I threw more or less the same initial prompt at it, but this time I stressed that I really wanted it to use the existing engine where possible. It managed to pretty much one-shot the problem in about 9 minutes and used up just 2% of my daily quota³.

I've done a little more tidying up since, and I still need to properly review the result, but from what I can see of the initial results it's found all of the issues I wanted it to find, first time (something Claude didn't manage) and hasn't found any issues that don't exist (also something Claude didn't manage).

So I guess this time Gemini was the reliable buddy. But not knowing which buddy you can rely on makes for a pretty unreliable group of buddies.

It's a small thing, but here's round 2 of me vs Claude. This time I'm directing the agent to clean up the code that does word counts, getting it to use the Markdown to plain text code that exists in BlogMore, rather than the regex-based Markdown-stripper it was using. The approach it landed on made sense to me, adding another text extractor class, but one that ignores fenced codeblocks¹. So, in addition to this code (I've removed all docstrings and comments for the sake of including here):

class _AllTextExtractor(HTMLParser):

    def __init__(self) -> None:
        super().__init__(convert_charrefs=True)
        self._chunks: list[str] = []

    def handle_data(self, data: str) -> None:
        self._chunks.append(data)

    @property
    def text(self) -> str:
        return re.sub(r"\s+", " ", "".join(self._chunks)).strip()

it also added this:

class _TextWithoutCodeExtractor(HTMLParser):

    def __init__(self) -> None:
        super().__init__(convert_charrefs=True)
        self._chunks: list[str] = []
        self._pre_depth: int = 0

    def handle_starttag(self, tag: str, attrs: list[tuple[str, str | None]]) -> None:
        if tag == "pre":
            self._pre_depth += 1

    def handle_endtag(self, tag: str) -> None:
        if tag == "pre" and self._pre_depth > 0:
            self._pre_depth -= 1

    def handle_data(self, data: str) -> None:
        if self._pre_depth == 0:
            self._chunks.append(data)

    @property
    def text(self) -> str:
        return re.sub(r"\s+", " ", "".join(self._chunks)).strip()

The function that converts Markdown to plain text then decides which extractor to use, based on if the caller asked for codeblocks to be included or not.

All pretty reasonable.

Only... that text property on both those classes is identical. The __init__ method is the same save for one extra line. Even handle_data is more or less the same except for that guarding if.

I can't. I can't let that stand. It's almost copy/paste. For me, this is the ideal time to use just a little bit of inheritance. Here's my take (with classes renamed too, the leading _ didn't feel necessary for one thing):

class TextExtractor(HTMLParser):

    def __init__(self) -> None:
        super().__init__(convert_charrefs=True)
        self._chunks: list[str] = []

    def handle_data(self, data: str) -> None:
        self._chunks.append(data)

    @property
    def text(self) -> str:
        return re.sub(r"\s+", " ", "".join(self._chunks)).strip()


class TextSansCodeExtractor(TextExtractor):

    def __init__(self) -> None:
        super().__init__()
        self._pre_depth = 0

    def handle_starttag(self, tag: str, attrs: list[tuple[str, str | None]]) -> None:
        if tag == "pre":
            self._pre_depth += 1

    def handle_endtag(self, tag: str) -> None:
        if tag == "pre" and self._pre_depth > 0:
            self._pre_depth -= 1

    def handle_data(self, data: str) -> None:
        if self._pre_depth == 0:
            super().handle_data(data)

Much better!

I was tempted to prompt Copilot/Claude about this and see what clean-up it would do, if it would arrive at similar code. But really it didn't seem like a good use of a premium request (perhaps I should have given Gemini a shot).

I see this kind of thing in the code quite a bit, and it speaks to what I've said before about what I'm seeing: the code it writes is... fine. It's okay. It does the job. The code runs. It's just not... to my taste, I guess.

Given the concerns I wrote about yesterday, in regard to the core generation code in BlogMore, I've been thinking some more about how I would probably have the code look. First thing this morning, over breakfast and coffee, I concluded that I'd probably have gone with something that was a single orchestration function/method, into which would be composed some modular support code. Back when I started the process of breaking up the generator I seem to recall that Gemini sort of went along those lines, but the code it created seemed pretty messy and the main site generation class was still a lot bigger than I would have liked. This is why, at the time, I went with Copilot/Claude's mixin-based approach; it felt a bit more hacky but the code felt tidier.

With this all in mind, I popped to my desk, made a branch off the current Gemini attempt to clean up the typing issues with the mixin approach, fired up Gemini CLI, and wrote it a prompt explaining what I didn't like and what I wanted it to do. The key points being:

• I wanted a similar separation of concerns as the mixin approach was aiming for.
• I wanted to move away from mixins.
• I wanted to favour something closer to composition.
• I wanted to favour simple functions over classes where possible.

I then set it off working and left it to get on with things. Overall I think it took around an hour, with the need for me to approve things now and again (so probably could have been faster, I wasn't there to answer right away every time), but it got there in the end. This has resulted in a third PR to clean up the generator typing issues. In doing so I feel I've also addressed most of the unease I was feeling yesterday evening, and might actually have got closer to where I'd rather the code was.

Glancing over the result, I can still see things I'd want cleaned up, and done in a slightly different way, but overall I have a better feeling about this third approach. I sense this is a better place to move on from.

So that's three PRs I have lined up to address the code smell that's been bugging me for a couple of days. One fixes it with an ABC; one fixes it with a protocol; and now one fixes it by reworking the submodularisation of the generator to use a different approach entirely. On the one hand, this seems like a lot of work and a lot of faff (and, as I said yesterday, I wouldn't start here to get where I want to be), but on the other hand I do kind of understand the appeal of being able to get hours of work done in a relatively short period of time, so you can experiment with the results.

Would I recommend someone work this way? No, of course not. Does it make for an interesting side-quest when I'm in "it is still my hobby too" mode? Yeah, it does.

The tidying of the BlogMore source carries on; sometimes by hand, but also sometimes by using either Copilot/Claude or Gemini to decide how best to nudge the codebase in a desired direction. When I do the latter, if I like the suggestions the agents make, but it looks like a bunch of work and I can't be faffed with all that typing, I get them to do the work; otherwise, I'll do it myself.

I am, however, seeing lots of evidence of what I expected to happen, and anticipated happening: to get to where I would like the code to be, I wouldn't have started here.

I'll stress again, for anyone who hasn't been following along, for anyone who might have landed into the middle of this long thread of AI experimenting, that this was the point and purpose. I wanted to use this tool to build something relatively inconsequential, and which I could likely build myself given the time and the inclination, and also something I would actively use.

So where am I at? My main distaste at the moment is the core generation code. Just a few days ago this was a couple of thousand lines of repetitive code that did the job, but which was a bit messy. There's no question that I would not have written it anything like this. Because of this I've been on a push to try and break it up and tidy it up. While doing this I've been playing Copilot/Claude and Gemini off against each other, to see who does what.

As of the time of writing, the generator is split up, but in a way I wouldn't have done myself either. It's pretty much half a dozen mixin classes in a trench coat, all pretending to be one cohesive class. I feel that's a reasonable solution given where I started, but honestly I wouldn't have started there had I been coding this by hand.

Right at the moment I'm working out the best way forward to tidy up an outcome of this approach that I really don't like. The generator code is littered with lots of # type: ignore[attr-defined] to keep mypy happy, because that's what Claude did when it built all those little mixins. To borrow from the explanation in AGENTS.md, the current makeup looks like this:

MinifyMixin
  └── AssetsMixin          (adds icons, file copying)

DateArchivesMixin
  └── ListingMixin         (adds tag/category listings)

OptionalPagesMixin
  └── PagesMixin           (adds core post/page/index/archive)

SiteGenerator(
    AssetsMixin, ContextMixin, GroupingMixin,
    ListingMixin, PagesMixin, PathsMixin
)

The issue is (for example) that MinifyMixin defines a method _write_html. Meanwhile OptionalPagesMixin and ListingMixin and so on make use of self._write_html. But because there's no direct connection between those two classes and MinifyMixin, mypy complains that _write_html isn't defined. Of course, it isn't defined, because it only becomes available when all those classes climb into the SiteGenerator trench coat and pretend to be a real class.

The ignore direction solves the problem, but it's ugly and it's cheating.

So I then set the two different agents on the path of proposing a solution to this. Both were quite different. Claude (via Copilot) decided that an abstract base class was the solution. Gemini decided that a protocol was the solution. I think I'm siding with Gemini on this one because this is a provides/needs problem, not a "kind of" problem. Even then though, while I sense Gemini has the right approach, I'm not always happy with its implementation of it¹, and once again: it's a cleanup of something I'd sooner not be cleaning up in the first place.

So here's the thing, and this harks back to wondering if the code is that bad: it isn't... but it's also generating work if you look at the code and decide that you want it clean and maintainable.

To get to where I want to go, I wouldn't start from here.

I get why I'm seeing the odd report here and there of people abandoning their code bases, or deciding to rebuild them from scratch by hand. Part of me wants to start a fresh branch, remove almost everything, and rewrite the code so it has feature-parity but in a way where I feel the code is tidy and elegant.

The experiment is working as planned.