Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you have examples of studies that verify that people are always aware of the gaps in their memories of why they did things rather than their memories sometimes "filling in the blanks", so to speak, I'd be interested. My impression is that the opposite has a lot more evidence in studies (e.g. around the reliability of eyewitness testimony). It's not clear to me whether you're aware of a rigorous basis for your clai…
It's obviously true that when people try to recall memories they either 1. recall them correctly 2. say they can't recall them 3. recall them incorrectly Are you asking me a study on when people say they remember something (cases 1 and 3) they are usually right or wrong?
Claude, change the “Add to Cart” button to blue
401–410 of 455 posts
Re: Claude, change the “Add to Cart” button to blue
#402Re: Claude, change the “Add to Cart” button to blue
#403Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's best read as a humorous piece of creative fiction and you can employ your suspension of disbelief for this ride
>I think it's best read as a humorous piece of creative fiction and you can employ your suspension of disbelief for this ride But what is the point of the fiction, if not that its relatable? Is it supposed to mirror some fictional reality that the author is relieved we dont live in? Or is it supposed to parody real life? I think its supposed to parody reality, but I don’t see the resemblance.
Re: Claude, change the “Add to Cart” button to blue
#404Re: Claude, change the “Add to Cart” button to blue
#405Great site, triggered memories! haha. To try to add something to this discussion -- I think that while I've seen these sort of loops less --- what I have seen is "overly helpful". Models nowadays want to double-triple-quadruple check things. I'm being silly but it verges on "I have a working solution but let me write a variation in Rust to ensure a convergent solution and prove this works". I've had to stop models no…
I am currently building a very large feature and the only way to do this properly is to do it in small steps.
No matter what I prompt, I always have to spend a bunch of time reigning it in during planning (and implementation!) because it tries to solve the whole thing end-to-end or add enough boilerplate so that a code path (that is still under construction) returns a meaningful (but wrong) value.
And then of course every time I start a new session it gets very upset that the feature I am trying to implement will never work because the main user entry point has a 'not fully implemented' exception that definitely needs to be removed immediately!
Re: Claude, change the “Add to Cart” button to blue
#406I haven't experienced anything like this with Codex. Why do people stick with Claude Code if it doesn't do what you ask it to?
I enjoy working one level lower where I describe the files I want changed and how it should be solved, I either have bad results or stop understanding the structure of the programs otherwise. I also would never go more than two prompts in without reverting and starting differently nowadays.
Re: Claude, change the “Add to Cart” button to blue
#407Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the relief of finally remembering the name felt like, well, hitting a jackpot I understand the joy of success but I fail to see how this is gambling. I could have an equivalent conversation with a friend (more likely about a movie in trying to remember than a painting, but still) and get the exact same type of iterative “no, not that one, it was more like X” and feel elated when my friend finally realizes I’m takin…
sorry, maybe my english is failing me here. what i was getting at is that using ai feels like gambling to me, where tokens, time, etc. are wagered against the chance for desired output. the risk is that you waste your tokens/time, and the prize is a useful answer (if not the exact code/solution/whatever one was hoping for) i wasn’t trying to convince you, i’m just explaining that this is gambling in a meaningful sens…
Re: Claude, change the “Add to Cart” button to blue
#408Earlier quoted context omitted.
The purpose of a prompt like that is to have it rephrase it in its own words, so you can spot any misunderstandings and correct them. If you're of the belief that this is a contradiction in terms, then what can I say? It works.
But it doesn't "understand" these words any better. When transforming into code it may reinterpret yet again.
Re: Claude, change the “Add to Cart” button to blue
#409Re: Claude, change the “Add to Cart” button to blue
#410Earlier quoted context omitted.
Part skeptic and part zetetic, what prompt would you have used? My impression is that this is an oversimplified demonstration of what can happen when you prompt Claude in a system with many more variables (than two buttons and two colours). If I want the button to turn blue and that's it, what instead do I ask? Even in a complicated system with many levers, what do I request other than the desired end result, hoping…
"Make the Add to Cart button blue" is fine as a first step. When that doesn't have the desired result, I would simply revert the change, start a new session, and do something like "Give the Add to Cart button its own theme separate from the default button theme. Make the color for this new theme blue.". If this gives almost the correct result (e.g. it's not the shade of blue I want) I'd do a followup like "change the…
I'm counting maybe 80 keystrokes? That's shorter than your second prompt.
This idea generalizes. Large Language Models are poorly suited for tasks that we have already purpose-built systems to be easy for humans to use. The easiest way to tell your website that you want a button to look a certain way is to update the code. If you know exactly how you want something done, we have developed an incredibly efficient way to tell computers how something should be done: it's called source code.
LLMs work best when they're handed tasks that you don't want to figure out how to do.