161–170 of 209 posts
> "I’m not saying don’t use AI agents. I use Claude Code every day." Irony is using Claude to write a beautifully structured, 2,000-word essay warning the industry about the dangers of letting Claude design things. It’s self-awareness by proxy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They heavily used AI to design every part of it and it was awful. Data corruption, performance problems, lost items, race conditions everything you can think of was an issue. Presumably that's better than no game at all. > It took me 2 weeks just to get it to an "acceptable" level and it was still awful as the whole design was simply flawed. Doing 2 weeks of fixing might have been hell, but this sounds like it was…
No the game failed because of these non stop issues, it lost all hype and the "fixed" version couldn't sustain itself anymore as it took around a month to fix the remaining issues. At the 2nd company it wasted thousands of dollars of advertisement because the server could not withstand the load and obviously data loss issues tained the image forever and will likely end up the same way. Also please don't take this as…
The other way to look at this is, thank goodness we didn't waste months or years on a failed game concept. Instead we got to market and validated (or invalidated) the concept fast.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which is to say, not at all? A hammer isn’t subservient, it doesn’t have the capacity to be. Saying a hammer is subservient is stretching the definition for literary flourish, but it doesn’t actually make a lot of sense. The definition that came up for subservient when I checked was “prepared to obey others unquestioningly“.
You took it too literally. It means, the f*ing tool should do one thing well and f*off with its crappy "suggestions". Why is my washing machine trying to do talk to me nowadays? Once its done washing my clothes, it should just shut the f*up and turn itself off. I"ll tend to the clothes when I have time. Not when the machine tells me to. We are overwhelmed with the machines designed by morons in product management who…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Suggesting it should be 'subservient' is also anthropomorphizing. Not really, you can program a machine to give out orders humans can interpret, so humans can serve a machine that isn't anthropomorphized.
The machine in your scenario is just relaying human intent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
AI uses a high confidence tone - likely because its training data is heavy on authoritative texts/reference books. And it does get people into a lot of trouble. I have got into trouble with it when it is extremely confident about something I am not very familiar with (as recently as two weeks ago with Claude). I have also had long drawn out "arguments" when I have known it's wrong based on my experience and intuition…
>And it does get people into a lot of trouble. Pretty much everyone takes it at face value unless we know otherwise from prior experience. Even the most advanced models make embarrassing mistakes and fumble with simple tasks. Yet we are very willing to give them exceptional slack for it? I wish I knew why. Are people just that easily overcome by confident voices?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They heavily used AI to design every part of it and it was awful. Data corruption, performance problems, lost items, race conditions everything you can think of was an issue. Presumably that's better than no game at all. > It took me 2 weeks just to get it to an "acceptable" level and it was still awful as the whole design was simply flawed. Doing 2 weeks of fixing might have been hell, but this sounds like it was…
No the game failed because of these non stop issues, it lost all hype and the "fixed" version couldn't sustain itself anymore as it took around a month to fix the remaining issues. At the 2nd company it wasted thousands of dollars of advertisement because the server could not withstand the load and obviously data loss issues tained the image forever and will likely end up the same way. Also please don't take this as…
You should've led with that then.
The company is likely to disagree and think it failed for a number of reasons, that only being one of them, and still depending on the cost may be very happy with their decision.
For one, even if it was a complete dumpster fire disaster, that is at least potentially a learning opportunity.
Whether they saw it as one is a different thing entirely.
If they think they can make games for 1/10th the engineering price, they are likely going to try until proven otherwise.
It's harder to convince them, no, it can't be done, just trust me, bro, I know from experience of never even trying.
Accountability is the biggest unaddressed challenge for AI implementation. When one person is able to do too much too quickly, they can create more liability than they can accommodate if something fails. It is essential that a human is responsible for the utilization of any AI output in the real world, but that is not enough. For our own sakes, we must find ways to minimize the tech-debt bankruptcy blast-radius of th…
I think it's probably a mistake to make a blanket statement that Claude gets every important thing wrong. It's one of those obviously untrue things that makes a skeptical reader question the validity of the rest of the article. For what it's worth, Opus tells me that I'm wrong and not to do things all of the time . When I reflect on why that is, it's because of the way that I prompt it. You could say that I am subcon…
Me: I have two bits and need to mill some 5mm aluminum.
A Makera Spiral 'O' - 1/8" shank * 12mm or a carbide 6.35 * 22 * 50
I believe that they are both carbide single flute bits, but the 2nd one seems like it would make short work of 6061.
Claude: The Makera 1/8" single-flute 12 mm is the sensible choice.
The 6.35 × 22 × 50 mm bit may look like it would make short work of 6061, but on a Carvera it is probably the more dangerous choice. It is a much larger cutter, with much more engagement, and it asks more from the spindle, frame rigidity, workholding, and chip evacuation. In a small dry machine, “bigger” often becomes “more chatter and more heat,” not “faster.”
----
TL;DR: Claude doesn't seem to have any issue telling me when I'm wrong.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What it actually suggests is that the AI's response to these questions of judgment have little correlation with the thing it's judging. Sure, you can get it to be complimentary, if you want it to be. Sure, you can get it be critical, if you want it to be. But what if I don't know if my design needs to be complimented or critiqued in this instance? This is the default position when seeking input, and so "prompt with m…
So what I do when I'm not sure about something, is I say "I want to achieve X, I was thinking I could solve it by doing Y, what are the pros and cons of this approach, and what is a alternative solution you would suggest?" And from there it's a interactive discussion drilling down on details until I understand the problem and the solutions better. It definitely challenges my bias when I do this. The one thing it does…
> interactive discussion drilling down on details until I understand the problem and the solutions better.
I think it is fair to call this use of AI something akin to a fusion of a super-competent search engine and a leveled-up rubber duck (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubber_duck_debugging). And this is not to downplay the utility of either of those things.
However, one cannot rely on an AI to decide when the details are sufficiently expounded, or when one understands them clearly enough. If one starts hinting that one gets it when one really doesn't, or that one is getting close to having all the pieces together, the AI will not be opinionated enough to contradict that sentiment.
> It definitely challenges my bias when I do this. The one thing it doesn't challenge is the X. Formulate the problem poorly, and you'll get a bad solution.
The best advice an expert can give a beginner is generally in the form of solutions to XY problems (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XY_problem). It is a shame that AI are rarely opinionated enough to suggest you're not hunting the right thing. And if you do explicitly prompt it to consider if you're an XY problem, usually it takes that as a cue to indulge that suspicion regardless of its merit.
I don't think this is an inherent issue to LLMs and I see signs of it improving bit-by-bit. I can recall the shit-on-a-stick test about a year ago (https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/1k920cg/new_chatgp...), and when I most recently asked Claude "Are oyster mushrooms or wine cap mushrooms more capable of high levels of sunlight?" it answered my question while also adding, "Caveat on the comparison: the relevant variable isn't sun per se but moisture retention. A wine cap bed that's kept moist will take far more sun than an exposed oyster log, but a sun-baked, drying bed will fail for either" which I think is a mature amount of pushback to include.
In the end I still disagree with the notion that subservience is, by default, the right attitude for an LLM to have. An agent spawned specifically for code generation according to a spec? Sure. But in any cases where you're trying to refine rather than execute your ideas, you want something to call you out on your bad ideas.
I have a good story to share that I came across recently. Around 2 years ago I had to clean up a mess because someone who doesn't really know what they're doing designed an instancing system for a game. They heavily used AI to design every part of it and it was awful. Data corruption, performance problems, lost items, race conditions everything you can think of was an issue. It took me 2 weeks just to get it to an "a…
This is also why I think the "boycott AI" movement is misguided. AI doesn't produce slop: unskilled AI operators do.
Heck just the other day I saw a headline about a Nobel literature laureate apparently using AI, with some "expert" confidently claiming the winning novel was 100% generated. AI output quality ranges from slop to Nobel price worthy, depending on who uses it. Which seems to support the notion that it's a tool, much like any other.