61–70 of 434 posts
I've been prompting Fable 5 to "use your own judgement" with respect to things like tests recently (based on earlier tips from Thariq) and it seems to work well, which is entertaining since apparently now "judgement" is a characteristic of a model that we need to care about.
We should design a specific language to make sure that we can encode the exact requirements that we want. Something that has a limited set of keywords that are explicit. Wait a minute...
The success of LLM's (by usage) tells us that programming languages are still too close to the machine than the actual problem domain as defined by humans. If we truly had the right abstractions, no one would care to use LLM's for programming.
At one point someone have to take "what you think it should do" into defined unambiguous spec that is called "code"
We should design a specific language to make sure that we can encode the exact requirements that we want. Something that has a limited set of keywords that are explicit. Wait a minute...
Most of this article seems like... common sense? Not sure how it's related to the latest generation in particular. I usually find Anthropic's advice on how to prompt their own models deviating from what I see in practice, which is puzzling. Their system prompt was always way too bloated and they kept it as a huge piece for some reason, instead of breaking up into parts. Shouldn't they know better? I wonder if they lo…
i think you'd be surprised. every model release there's seemingly hordes of people who proclaim the new model is terrible and they're going back to the old one, and it all stems from people still prompting and having their configs setup like we're back in the sonnet 3.5 days
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Commit Strip seems to be down, so here's the Wayback Machine version: https://web.archive.org/web/20260521130338/https://www.commi...
I was just thinking of this exact comic, which is etched into my brain for some reason. The obvious counter to this is that we've been going through this evolution of increasing abstraction as developers for nearly a century now. In the 40s and well into the 60s, most code was written either as straight up machine code or an assembly language. MS DOS is almost entirely assembly. UNIX ushered in the era of "high level…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Commit Strip seems to be down, so here's the Wayback Machine version: https://web.archive.org/web/20260521130338/https://www.commi...
I was just thinking of this exact comic, which is etched into my brain for some reason. The obvious counter to this is that we've been going through this evolution of increasing abstraction as developers for nearly a century now. In the 40s and well into the 60s, most code was written either as straight up machine code or an assembly language. MS DOS is almost entirely assembly. UNIX ushered in the era of "high level…
But tainted 20-40% by bouts of Wild Magic which make the outcome entirely nondeterministic, despite the best protection wards we can conjure.
Hmm, so what happens in greenfield projects ? In any case, at least all the slop will be consistent.
I've always thought that extensive throat-clearing and prefixing the Treaties of Westphalia-length instructions into the context window was unnecessarily baroque when you can just talk to the agent. I guess part of it is also that I don't mind doing 'hand-edits' like for example LLMs love to say "// so and so removed" I just go and remove that manually later rather than being like "don't comment about what you remove…
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but that's just about the best example possible for using AGENTS/CLAUDE.md. Just add "don't comment about what you removed!11" and you never have to say it again...
...but you'll get constantly nagged about the `11` of course!