[dead]
Claude Cookbook
51–60 of 182 posts
Re: Claude Cookbook
#52Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've been cooking with the help of LLMs a few times a month for over a year now. It's worked out well 9/10 times. It turns out the "average" version of a recipe that's baked into the weights is usually a solid recipe, and they're really good at offering substitutions for things like "I don't have ingredient X" or "make it vegetarian". It's also fun promoting "make it tastier" once or twice after each recipe just to s…
One of the most satisfying and useful applications for AI is handing it the URL for a recipe (replete with 8 paragraphs of useless introductory text, 2 paragraphs dedicated to how to refrigerate the meal, 9 inline advertisements and a mid-scroll ad) and having it return the actual recipe in Markdown in an Obsidian folder.
Surprisingly, a lot of these recipe websites (even the worst offenders for fluff and ads) have a clean JSON API for getting the recipe directly. I self-host a Mealie instance (https://docs.mealie.io/) which has an "import from URL" feature that uses this. It has rarely if ever failed me.
Re: Claude Cookbook
#53Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't it clear that some people are better at working with/prompting LLMs than other people? Or is the idea that what you write to them and how you use them doesn't matter, it's all up to the model/harness? To me this seems clear, so then clearly this is a skill, which typically is called "prompt engineering". Specifically CoT or the other things you mention wasn't referred to as "prompt engineering" as far as I know…
RL has basically killed prompt engineering. You still need to provide the right context and process, but how you communicate with them beyond that is no longer so important.
[flagged]
Re: Claude Cookbook
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't it clear that some people are better at working with/prompting LLMs than other people? Or is the idea that what you write to them and how you use them doesn't matter, it's all up to the model/harness? To me this seems clear, so then clearly this is a skill, which typically is called "prompt engineering". Specifically CoT or the other things you mention wasn't referred to as "prompt engineering" as far as I know…
It's not really a skill. The models are at this point smarter than you are, so the idea that you can prompt them "better" is laughable really when discussing frontier models. It's like imagining you could "prompt" Richard Feynman to be smarter at Physics. That is, for 99.9% of engineers, if you want the model to do a code review of your project, the best solution is to just ask Fable, "Hey Fable, do a code review of…
[deleted]
Re: Claude Cookbook
#55I thought this is a new product to generate recipes with Claude.
I was hoping too, because I use a Claude project for recipes and it’s great for suggestions and adapting recipes for what’s in the pantry.
Re: Claude Cookbook
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
>I'm either going to ask the AI how to do it LLMs seem terrible at using LLMs in harnesses. Have you seen how they rot their context with the stuff they put in .md files if you let them? You'd have to have the LLMs search, and thus these resources could be for them more than you
Yes, but I have had moderate luck with creating an "agent-instructor" skill that has strict instructions around keeping language strong, unambiguous, concise, and always presenting me with exact diffs to review before writing anything. Another thing in it is a strict line count. Any increase in line count requires my approval. That last one is important because it plays well with two biases: models don't tend to crea…
Did you tell Claude "make an agent instructor skill, whatever you think is good, go for it," or did you use the knowledge you had gained about how AI works and how to write good instructions for it?
Re: Claude Cookbook
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
Remember in 2023 when people thought "prompt engineering" would be the new software engineering and invested tons of time into learning CoT, ReAct, thread-of-thoughts, etc? Those were mostly obviated by reasoning models and harness updates by 2024. It seems pointless to invest energy into the latest/greatest AI technique or framework when they're going to either be absorbed or replaced on a 3 month cycle.
Isn't it clear that some people are better at working with/prompting LLMs than other people? Or is the idea that what you write to them and how you use them doesn't matter, it's all up to the model/harness? To me this seems clear, so then clearly this is a skill, which typically is called "prompt engineering". Specifically CoT or the other things you mention wasn't referred to as "prompt engineering" as far as I know…
Nah, you might be confusing prompt engineering with having domain knowledge. :)
Re: Claude Cookbook
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
One of the most satisfying and useful applications for AI is handing it the URL for a recipe (replete with 8 paragraphs of useless introductory text, 2 paragraphs dedicated to how to refrigerate the meal, 9 inline advertisements and a mid-scroll ad) and having it return the actual recipe in Markdown in an Obsidian folder.
Surprisingly, a lot of these recipe websites (even the worst offenders for fluff and ads) have a clean JSON API for getting the recipe directly. I self-host a Mealie instance ( https://docs.mealie.io/ ) which has an "import from URL" feature that uses this. It has rarely if ever failed me.
You can also hit "print" and get a nicely formatted, single page list of ingredients and recipe.
Re: Claude Cookbook
#59Gotta be honest, almost every "how to use AI" resource seems pointless to me. I'm either going to ask the AI how to do it, or if it's about using the AI then we can just bake it into the harness or wait for Anthropic/OpenAI to do it for me because they're always trivial. All of these resources on agentic workflows, managing agent memory, harness engineering, etc. appear to just be theatre to me.
Exactly. I think we all have to come to this conclusion ourselves, because the message we’ve been getting from the LLM companies is “sweet user, you DO add value to the LLM, you gave it that custom subagent, remember?”, and then they go and roll that idea into the next version. Once they do that a few times you go “eh why would I bother, this will be a default soon. I’ll just prompt it like normal”.
Just use the vanilla settings.
Re: Claude Cookbook
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't it clear that some people are better at working with/prompting LLMs than other people? Or is the idea that what you write to them and how you use them doesn't matter, it's all up to the model/harness? To me this seems clear, so then clearly this is a skill, which typically is called "prompt engineering". Specifically CoT or the other things you mention wasn't referred to as "prompt engineering" as far as I know…
It's not really a skill. The models are at this point smarter than you are, so the idea that you can prompt them "better" is laughable really when discussing frontier models. It's like imagining you could "prompt" Richard Feynman to be smarter at Physics. That is, for 99.9% of engineers, if you want the model to do a code review of your project, the best solution is to just ask Fable, "Hey Fable, do a code review of…
[flagged]