I don't use any of these type of LLM tools which basically amount to just a prompt you leave in place. They make it harder to refine my prompts and keep track of what is causing what in the outputs. I write very precise prompts every time. Also, I try not work out a problem over the course of several prompts back and forth. The first response is always the best and I try to one shot it every time. If I don't get what…
Strong agree. For every time that I'd get a better answer if the LLM had a bit more context on me (that I didn't think to provide, but it 'knew') there seems to be a multiple of that where the 'memory' was either actually confounding or possibly confounding the best response. I'm sure OpenAI and Antropic look at the data, and I'm sure it says that for new / unsophisticated users who don't know how to prompt, that thi…
Claude Memory
151–160 of 326 posts
Re: Claude Memory
#152Earlier quoted context omitted.
When you type a calculation into a calculator and it gives you an answer, do you say the calculator thinks of the answer? An LLM is basically the same as a calculator, except instead of giving you answers to math formulas it gives you a response to any kind of text.
In what ways do humans differ when they think?
Re: Claude Memory
#153Earlier quoted context omitted.
Strong agree. For every time that I'd get a better answer if the LLM had a bit more context on me (that I didn't think to provide, but it 'knew') there seems to be a multiple of that where the 'memory' was either actually confounding or possibly confounding the best response. I'm sure OpenAI and Antropic look at the data, and I'm sure it says that for new / unsophisticated users who don't know how to prompt, that thi…
> For every time that I'd get a better answer if the LLM had a bit more context on me If you already know what a good answer is why use a LLM? If the answer is "it'll just write the same thing quicker than I would have", then why not just use it as an autocomplete feature?
But myself as well, that prompt is very short. I don't keep a large stable of reusable prompts because I agree, every unnecessary word is a distraction that does more harm than good.
Re: Claude Memory
#154I don't use any of these type of LLM tools which basically amount to just a prompt you leave in place. They make it harder to refine my prompts and keep track of what is causing what in the outputs. I write very precise prompts every time. Also, I try not work out a problem over the course of several prompts back and forth. The first response is always the best and I try to one shot it every time. If I don't get what…
> The first response is always the best and I try to one shot it every time. If I don't get what I want, I adjust the prompt and try again. I've really noticed this too and ended up taking your same strategy, especially with programming questions. For example if I ask for some code and the LLM initially makes an incorrect assumption, I notice the result tends to be better if I go back and provide that info in my init…
Humans usually provide the same answer when asked the same question. LLMs almost never do, even for the exact same prompt.
Stop anthropomorphizing these tools.
Re: Claude Memory
#155Earlier quoted context omitted.
Strong agree. For every time that I'd get a better answer if the LLM had a bit more context on me (that I didn't think to provide, but it 'knew') there seems to be a multiple of that where the 'memory' was either actually confounding or possibly confounding the best response. I'm sure OpenAI and Antropic look at the data, and I'm sure it says that for new / unsophisticated users who don't know how to prompt, that thi…
Anecdotally, LLMs also get less intelligent when the context is filled up with a lot of irrelevant information.
Re: Claude Memory
#156Re: Claude Memory
#157Re: Claude Memory
#158Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, your last paragraph is absolutely the key to great output: instead of entering a discussion, refine the original prompt. It is much more token efficient, and gets rid of a lot of noise. I often start out with “proceed by asking me 5 questions that reduce ambiguity” or something like that, and then refine the original prompt. It seems like we’re all discovering similar patterns on how to interact with LLMs the be…
The trick to do this well is to split the part of the prompt that might change and won't change. So if you are providing context like code, first have it read all of that, then (new message) give it instructions. This way that is written to the cache and you can reuse it even if you're editing your core prompt. If you make this one message, it's a cache miss / write every time you edit. You can edit 10 times for the…
Re: Claude Memory
#159Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The first response is always the best and I try to one shot it every time. If I don't get what I want, I adjust the prompt and try again. I've really noticed this too and ended up taking your same strategy, especially with programming questions. For example if I ask for some code and the LLM initially makes an incorrect assumption, I notice the result tends to be better if I go back and provide that info in my init…
> Humans do the same thing. We get stuck on ideas we've already had. Humans usually provide the same answer when asked the same question. LLMs almost never do, even for the exact same prompt. Stop anthropomorphizing these tools.
Perhaps you are stuck on the stochastic parrot fallacy.
Re: Claude Memory
#160CC barely manages to follow all of the instructions within a single session in a single well-defined repo. 'You are totally right, it's been 2 whole messages since the last reminder, and I totally forgot that first rule in claude.md, repeated twice and surrounded by a wall of exclamation marks'. Would be wary to trust its memories over several projects