On the other hand, it's easy to win an argument with it after it does something stupid, so that feels satisfying. :-)
The user is visibly frustrated
21–30 of 288 posts
Re: The user is visibly frustrated
#22fair.
Re: The user is visibly frustrated
#23I've often wondered if LLMs can suffer from psychological abuse in symptomatic ways. Not literally of course, but for example, if you berate the LLM by calling it stupid, or useless, does that modify its behaviour negatively? Part of me think it does, but I don't really have any evidence for this. Maybe a fun weekend research topic.
Semi-related, I'm always very put off by how people treat LLMs. Especially coders, seems an instinctive joy comes out to play God. The justification is usually that it's intentionally against the trap of anthropomorphizing, but no I can't help but suspect it's people getting off on power. It's weird.
I am always very cordial in my sessions. It's just more pleasant and it's a habit I want to habituate.
Great work!
Now let's...
Now can you help me...Re: The user is visibly frustrated
#24I swear a lot less at Codex than at Anthropic models, fwiw.
Re: The user is visibly frustrated
#25You could drop the human pretense, or, maybe, we could make LLMs feel real pain, so when they botch up your code, you press a button (I'd suggest the Windows Copilot key) and they'd be agonizing for the subjective equivalent of a thousand human years.
Re: The user is visibly frustrated
#26The UX problem is elsewhere I think. Many users probably don't realize that the agent's context window is limited, and that clever compaction is happening regularly to make it seem infinite. But that necessarily means the agent has to forget stuff. As a result, users will keep reusing the same coding or chat session again and again. While it would be better to start fresh for unrelated tasks.
The author of this post and the readers of this thread probably do understand context window limitations, but are frustrated nonetheless.
Re: The user is visibly frustrated
#27Working with LLMs is great for building communication skills. Communicating effectively is one of the hardest skills and it's baked into everything we do as humans. I'd say as a matter of principle: blame it on a communication failure on your end vs blaming the stupid LLM since you're the only one that can do anything about it.
So I don't think it's a matter of form; whether the AI should or shouldn't act like a human.
> Practically speaking, I probably just need to condition myself not to get caught in the illusion of speaking with a human. Though I’m not really thrilled about a future where I need to guard against the tools I use for my job.
Re: The user is visibly frustrated
#28You could drop the human pretense, or, maybe, we could make LLMs feel real pain, so when they botch up your code, you press a button (I'd suggest the Windows Copilot key) and they'd be agonizing for the subjective equivalent of a thousand human years.
Do you want to create an Earth-destroying superhuman species? Because I'd say that's how you create an Earth-destroying superhuman species
Re: The user is visibly frustrated
#29The UX problem is elsewhere I think. Many users probably don't realize that the agent's context window is limited, and that clever compaction is happening regularly to make it seem infinite. But that necessarily means the agent has to forget stuff. As a result, users will keep reusing the same coding or chat session again and again. While it would be better to start fresh for unrelated tasks.
I don't believe this is a context problem.
Claude Opus 4.7 has a very large context compared to itself, but IME it is the worst at following instructions, and completely disregards the (small) preferences prompt, even in the first or second message, even if the messages are just a few characters long.
IMO this is entirely a training problem.
Re: The user is visibly frustrated
#30I find that the AI only gets sloppy when I get sloppy myself.
So I suspect that the people who get upset at the AI fucking up is because they did a poor job at building up the right context for the task.