Live data from Hacker News

Claude Code runs Git reset –hard origin/main against project repo every 10 mins

github.com

11–20 of 219 posts

Re: Claude Code runs Git reset –hard origin/main against project repo every 10 mins

#14
Isn't this a natural consequence of how these systems work?

The model is probabilistic and sequences like `git reset --hard` are very common in training data, so they have some probability to appear in outputs.

Whether such a command is appropriate depends on context that is not fully observable to the system, like whether a repository or changes are disposable or not. Because of that, the system cannot rely purely on fixed rules and has to figure intent from incomplete information, which is also probabilistic.

With so many layers of probabilities, it seems expected that sometimes commands like this will be produced even if they are not appropriate in that specific situation.

Even a 0.01% failure rate due to context corruption, misinterpretation of intent, or guardrail errors would show up regularly at scale, that is like 1 in 10000 queries.

Re: Claude Code runs Git reset –hard origin/main against project repo every 10 mins

#17
post #14

Isn't this a natural consequence of how these systems work? The model is probabilistic and sequences like `git reset --hard` are very common in training data, so they have some probability to appear in outputs. Whether such a command is appropriate depends on context that is not fully observable to the system, like whether a repository or changes are disposable or not. Because of that, the system cannot rely purely o…

That's not how the systems work. Just by a thing being common in training data doesn't mean it will be produced.

> I guess, what I'm trying to say ... is this even a bug? Sounds like the model is doing exactly what it is designed to do.

False, it goes against the RL/HF and other post training goals.

Re: Claude Code runs Git reset –hard origin/main against project repo every 10 mins

#18
post #14

Isn't this a natural consequence of how these systems work? The model is probabilistic and sequences like `git reset --hard` are very common in training data, so they have some probability to appear in outputs. Whether such a command is appropriate depends on context that is not fully observable to the system, like whether a repository or changes are disposable or not. Because of that, the system cannot rely purely o…

That's not how the systems work. Just by a thing being common in training data doesn't mean it will be produced. > I guess, what I'm trying to say ... is this even a bug? Sounds like the model is doing exactly what it is designed to do. False, it goes against the RL/HF and other post training goals.

> Just by a thing being common in training data doesn't mean it will be produced.

That's not what I said at all. I never said it will be produced. I said there is some probability of it being produced.

> False, it goes against the RL/HF and other post training goals.

It is correct that frequency in training data alone does not determine outputs, and that post-training (RLHF, policies, etc.) is meant to steer the model away from undesirable behavior.

But those mechanisms do not make such outputs impossible. They just make them less likely. The underlying system is still probabilistic and operating with incomplete context.

I am not sure how you can be so confident that a probabilistic model would never produce `git reset --hard`. There is nothing inherent in how LLMs work that makes that sequence impossible to generate.

Post reply on HN