221–225 of 225 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This stemmed from me asking Claude itself why it was writing such _weird_ plans with no detail (just a bunch of projected code changes). Claude stated: in its system prompt, it had strict instructions to provide no context or details. Keep plans under forty lines of code. Be terse.
This is Claude’s output of its system prompt, can you verify without going Claude of the system prompt? There is still potential of hallucination.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This stemmed from me asking Claude itself why it was writing such _weird_ plans with no detail (just a bunch of projected code changes). Claude stated: in its system prompt, it had strict instructions to provide no context or details. Keep plans under forty lines of code. Be terse.
This is Claude’s output of its system prompt, can you verify without going Claude of the system prompt? There is still potential of hallucination.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is Claude’s output of its system prompt, can you verify without going Claude of the system prompt? There is still potential of hallucination.
There was a complete verification. This entire thread provides context around what I originally published - which I wouldn't recommend recreating
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A responsible company develops an informed user group they can test new changes with and receive direct feedback they can take action on.
A big tech company has ~10k experiments running at once. Some engineers will be kicking off a few experiments every day. Some will be minor things like font sizes or wording of buttons, whilst others will be entirely new features or changes in rules. Focus groups have their place, but cannot collect nearly the same scale of information.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Informed consent for a paying user is inconvenient?
Did you read the TOC?
That is a dark pattern to inflict on users expecting consistent output.