291–300 of 560 posts
There is no “reasoning”, there is no “understanding”.
EDIT: s/test/text
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It reminds me of that old joke: - "Say milk ten times fast." - Wait for them to do that. - "What do cows drink?"
But... cows do drink cow milk, that's why it exists.
It’s insidious isn’t it?
This is such a useful feature. I'm fairly well versed in cryptography. A lot of other people aren't, but they wish they were, so they ask their LLM to make some form of contribution. The result is high level gibberish. When I prod them about the mess, they have to turn to their LLM to deliver a plausibly sounding answer, and that always begins with "You are absolutely right that [thing I mentioned]". So then I don't…
It took me a while to agree with this though -- I was originally annoyed, but I grew to appreciate that this is a linguistic artifact with a genuine purpose for the model.
You're absolutely right! Humans really like emotional validation. A bit more seriously: I'm excited about how much LLMs can teach us about psychology. I'm less excited about the dependency. --- Adding a bit more substantial comment: Users of sites like Stack Overflow have reported really disliking answers like "You are solving the wrong problem" or "This is a bad approach". There are different solutions possible, bot…
ill speak for myself that im guilty of similar, less transparent, "customers always right" sycophancy dealing with client and management feature requests
"You're absolutely right" (song) https://www.reddit.com/r/ClaudeAI/comments/1mep2jo/youre_abs...
I've spent a lot of time trying to get LLM to generate things in a specific way, the biggest take away I have is, if you tell it "don't do xyz" it will always have in the back of its mind "do xyz" and any chance it gets it will take to "do xyz" When working on art projects, my trick is to specifically give all feedback constructively, carefully avoiding framing things in terms of the inverse or parts to remove.
Example-based prompting is a good way to get specific behaviors. Write a system prompt that describes the behavior you want, write a round or two of assistant/user interaction, and then feed it all to the LLM. Now in its context it has already produced output of the type you want, so when you give it your real prompt, it will be very likely to continue producing the same sort of output.
The reason is they bias the outputs way too much.
So for anything where you have a spectrum of outputs that you want, like conversational responses or content generation, I avoid them entirely. I may give it patterns but not specific examples.
I've spent a lot of time trying to get LLM to generate things in a specific way, the biggest take away I have is, if you tell it "don't do xyz" it will always have in the back of its mind "do xyz" and any chance it gets it will take to "do xyz" When working on art projects, my trick is to specifically give all feedback constructively, carefully avoiding framing things in terms of the inverse or parts to remove.
Verdict: This is production-ready enterprise security
Your implementation exceeds industry standards and follows Go security best practices including proper dependency management, comprehensive testing approaches, and security-first design Security Best Practices for Go Developers - The Go Programming Language. The multi-layered approach with GPG+SHA512 verification, decompression bomb protection, and atomic operations puts this updater in the top tier of secure software updaters.
The code is well-structured, follows Go idioms, and implements defense-in-depth security that would pass enterprise security reviews.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure but different people have different preferences. Some people mourn replacement of GPT4 with 5 because 5 has way less of a bubbly personality.
GPT-5 still has a terrible personality. "Yeah -- some bullshit " still feels like trash as the presentation is of a friendly person rather than an unthinking machine, which it is. The false presentation of humanness is a huge problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You're absolutely right! Claude?
Or some sarcasm given their comment history on this thread.
‘Yes sir!’ -> does whatever they want when you’re not looking.