cd /news/artificial-intelligence/i-m-a-seeing-eye-dog-for-a-computer · home › topics › artificial-intelligence › article
[ARTICLE · art-121906] src=claytonwramsey.com ↗ pub= topic=artificial-intelligence verified=true sentiment=↓ negative

I'm a seeing-eye dog for a computer

A robotics developer reports that using LLM coding assistants to debug robot code through visualizations is slow and ineffective, often taking 30 minutes to produce wrong answers, leading the developer to do debugging manually. The developer, who uses Rerun's visualizer tool with an MCP server, found that language models lack a sense of normal robot behavior and that GUI control tools are limited.

read2 min views23 publishedSep 3, 2026

I used to argue with people on the internet. After about six replies, you realize that you’re speaking to someone incapable of thought. This is a more pleasant experience than getting a LLM to do what you want.

I write code for robots. Rather, it’s 2026, so these days I also tell LLMs to write code for robots. I often handwrite the code myself, but I’ve found that LLM coding assistants’ limitless patience ameliorates the drudgiest work of coding. Since robots are real things, the gold standard in debugging is visualization: you demonstrate a robot solving the problem you specified and inspect the results with your eyeballs.

Debugging against a visualization is often one of the most annoying parts of writing robot code, since the best workflow you can get is just writing down some magic numbers, re-running your software, and then zooming around the output. If the result is no good, you punch in some new magic numbers and pray for the best.

Since I already like making LLMs handle drudgery for me, I decided to see if I could get my coding assistant to do all that for me. After all, these models already come with an image encoder, and my visualizer tool comes with an MCP server.

If the LLM does the debugging loop for me, I can move on to doing better tasks, like staking out the breakroom for leftover pizza. My experience so far has been less than pleasant. It seems that no amount of training on text can give a language model a good sense of what a normal, working robot does. Beyond that, the tools exposed for coding assistants to control GUI software are limited at best. I can zoom around the debug viewer and snap into one spot in the scene in five seconds flat, but for an MCP-powered assistant, just getting to the right view in the scene can take five minutes. So, when I ask an LLM to debug a problem visually, I mostly just wait thirty minutes and then get a new, also-wrong answer.

All that’s left is the dumbest workflow possible: I fire up the debug viewer myself, look around for weird mistakes, then take a screenshot and tell the language model how badly it messed up this time. Eventually I just decided to do all the debugging work myself, so I would at least get to do the fun part too.

── more in #artificial-intelligence 4 stories · sorted by recency
── more on @rerun 3 stories trending now
sponsored brought to you by zahid.host 4,200+ EU-deployed projects
reading about agents? ship yours in a single git push.

Run your AI side-project on zahid.host

EU-based hosting, git-push deploys, automatic HTTPS, no cold starts. Free tier with a custom domain — perfect for shipping the agent you just read about.

$git push zahid main
→ Live at https://your-agent.zahid.host ✓
Get free account → Pricing
from €0/mo · no card required
LIVE [news/i-m-a-seeing-eye-dog…] indexed:0 read:2min 2026-09-03 · —