Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The user is visibly frustrated

pscanf.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 288 posts

Re: The user is visibly frustrated

#251

Post by ytoawwhra92 »

HarHarVeryFunny wrote: post #231
rpcope1 wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am maybe positing something even stronger: say you had two prompts, both with the same information, one was written in the style of a good paper out of Nature or Science, one written in the style of a bad Twitter post or other kind of mess, even with the same information, I increasingly believe even for the top end models like Opus, the results are at least materially different if not grossly so. I really believe t…

Of course - remember it is not trying to answer your question or do what you ask, just trying to do what it was trained to do which is generate the statistically most likely continuation of your input. Your input sets the tone for the type of response that is statistically likely to follow. Idiots tend to engage with other idiots, and experts tend to seek out experts to talk to .. this is what it has been trained on,…

For many of these tools your prompt is a small part of the initial input, and it shrinks as a proportion of the total as more information is added to the context.

IME you can get great results from crappy prompts if the surrounding context is high quality, and you'll often get terrible results from great prompts if the surrounding context is low quality or non-existent. Same goes for the training corpus, I imagine.

I think success with LLMs is dominated by giving them a well-structured workspace, high-quality reference material, and strict tools with which they can check their work. Then you only need great prompts when venturing into parts unknown. But for that stuff you may as well write it by hand and get the LLM to fill in the gaps IMO.

Re: The user is visibly frustrated

#252

Post by pdimitar »

zrn900 wrote: post #145
RandomBK wrote: post #36

I've found swearing at a model to be quite effective in getting it to rethink and correct its mistakes. This seems to apply across Codex, Claude, Qwen, and Gemma/Gemini. I don't know if the model is picking up on a "need to lock in and be more rigorous" signal, or if the model providers are routing to smarter models if they detect a frustrated user. But if a model keeps making the same mistakes, swearing at it often…

I don't understand - are people's agents making so many mistakes? I'm using VSCode + Cline + Mimo to refactor big codebases and add features (including payment integrations) and it's rarely making any mistakes.

I use Claude Opus 4.7 on max thinking inside Claude Code and I gotta tell you, as context of the project grows, it starts slipping. No amount of whipping and cursing has helped.

Currently looking to start making my own hooks setup so it can be safer but nothing concrete yet.

Re: The user is visibly frustrated

#254

Post by Wicher »

streetfighter64 wrote: post #120
antonvs wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't see them say anything about dignity. They said using Windows makes them angry, which is understandable. That speaks to a poor user experience design. Framing it as a privilege issue is blaming the victim.

"The victim" of using a certain operating system? Please. Being lucky enough to work in a comfortable air-conditioned office, AND having the luxury of declining jobs sorely because the operating system makes you angry, is the height of privilege. Stop feeling sorry for yourselves and realize how good you have it. > I didn't see them say anything about dignity. The word dignity was used twice in the comment I replied…

> "The victim" of using a certain operating system? Please.

Perhaps "victim" in the sense of not having much choice/agency? Neither in the choice of operating system (due to sparsely restrained anticompetitive behaviour of incumbents over decades) nor in how they're treated (entrapped) by the operating systems. The OSes are really POS (point of sale) terminals for media and cloud services.

Thus consider most operating system users aren't really users. They're "usees", they're being used. One could surmise that the Microsoft/Apple/Google shareholders are the real users of the operating systems.

If you'd left the commercial OS world in the Win2K/OSX 10.4 era for, say, Gentoo Linux, and would come back now to look over someone's shoulder while they're using (or rather, being used by) their operating systems, you could be forgiven for coming away with the impression that some kind of authority inversion has taken place in the meantime.

Re: The user is visibly frustrated

#255

Post by Pay08 »

eddythompson80 wrote: post #242
Pay08 wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Remember when Copilot was basically a super-smart version of Intellisense? It was awesome. I have only used the Copilot completion for C#, but it was absolutely awful and a net negative not just compared to IntelliSense, but compared to the most basic autocomplete algorithm imaginable. I turned it off after a day.

well you know it kept improving. It got pretty good, though everyone moved to full "agentic" changes over autocomplete.

Maybe it shouldn't have been forced on me if it wasn't ready, then.

Re: The user is visibly frustrated

#256

Post by Our_Benefactors »

“What the fuck did you just do?” -> when I need to undo recent changes

“What the fuck did you just fucking say about me, you little bitch? I’ll let you know I have over 300 confirmed prompts” -> when the AI argues with me and I need to put it in its place.

Re: The user is visibly frustrated

#257

Post by recursive »

scotty79 wrote: post #244
recursive wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't extend the same grace to machines as I do to humans. This is working as intended. I have patience for people that mistake. But much less for machines. Why should I? These are things created by trillion dollar for-profit corporations. Extending them any benefit of any doubt is a vulnerability waiting to be exploited.

That's the issue. You frame your relationships with people using words like "grace" and "patience". If you were "good natured", "kind hearted", "understanding" and "nurturing" instead you wouldn't have to "extend" it to "machines" because those are not limited resources you can run out of. Politeness towards AI would come naturally because of who you are. The only thing you could run out of is energy and that's easy…

You're making a lot of assertions about the nature of relationships and the definition of machines. I'll assume this is based on a philosophy that works for you. But now you have set up a system of definitions where, for example, a good natured person, by definition, cannot be frustrated. It kind of sounds like sophistry to me.

I genuinely don't understand your argument about machines. It's not a machine it's just a system of levers and pulleys.

I have developed some of my own systems for minimizing frustration, and they generally work reasonably well, despite being different from yours.

Re: The user is visibly frustrated

#258

Post by bigstrat2003 »

QuercusMax wrote: post #230
zeumo wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Genuine question: what's the point of vibe-coding a personal, low-stake project? I do work on such projects, but the main goal for me is to learn, not the end result. If the end result is important, then there it's overwhelmingly likely that someone already implemented it better than I ever would, and I should just use that implementation. I have implemented a qoi codec or a gemini client, not because I needed to use…

I'm 43 years old, and I've been coding for as long as I can remember (I started on the C64 as soon as I could read, in order to play and make my own video games). I have applications I've worked on since I was a teenager which are still in active use in some version or another. Code has always been a means to an end. The process is fun, sure (just like solving sudoku puzzles) but the real payoff is the results. I've…

I wish I could relate to that. For me, writing the code is the fun part - I couldn't care less about the end result. Sadly, it's the part that our industry seems determined (unwisely imo) to discard.

It's kind of like cooking - I don't need to bake a cake in order to have a nice cake to enjoy. The bakery makes very nice cakes I can purchase for far less effort. But there's no joy, no accomplishment, in purchasing a cake. Only in actually making it myself.

Re: The user is visibly frustrated

#259

Post by GJim »

layer8 wrote: post #52
RandomBK wrote: post #36

I've found swearing at a model to be quite effective in getting it to rethink and correct its mistakes. This seems to apply across Codex, Claude, Qwen, and Gemma/Gemini. I don't know if the model is picking up on a "need to lock in and be more rigorous" signal, or if the model providers are routing to smarter models if they detect a frustrated user. But if a model keeps making the same mistakes, swearing at it often…

I would prefer not having to get into a habit that might bleed into non-LLM interactions.

Personally, I don't say 'please' to vending machines and 'thankyou' to automatic doors :-P

Re: The user is visibly frustrated

#260

Post by eithed »

notnaut wrote: post #234
eithed wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a skill for exactly such case! Here's an excerpt :) ``` --- name: evidence-debugging description: > Use when debugging any failing test or bug, investigating unexpected behavior, or tracing the cause of a reported defect. --- # Debugging Discipline ## When to Use - A test is failing and you need to understand why - Behavior is unexpected and the cause is unknown - The user asks you to debug or investigate a de…

Thanks a lot! This is really helpful!

No worries! Here's the full prompt if you need it: https://sharetext.io/g6ibuxa5 (you'll probably need to update it, as there're specific things I wanted it to take into account)

Ultimately my point is to define small contexts grounding agents in tasks you expect them to do. Trying to define guidelines for everything will not work = telling it that it shouldn't delete prod AND that it's architect AND that it should review code using this and this principle AND milliard other things that you expect from yourself.

Post reply on HN