Cursor IDE support hallucinates lockout policy, causes user cancellations

Post by jimbokun » Wed, Apr 16, 2025, 2:42 PM UTC

nkoren wrote: post #458

gtirloni wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) Once you get it to output something you like, do you check all the lines it changed? Is there a threshold after which you just... hope? 2) No matter what the learning curve, you're using a statistical tool that outputs in probabilities. If that's fine for your workflow/company, go for it. It's just not what a lot of developers are okay with. Of course it's a spectrum with the AI deniers in one corner and the vibe…

I've been doing AI-assisted coding for several months now, and have found a good balance that works for me. I'm working in Typescript and React, neither of which I know particularly well (although I know ES6 very well). In most cases, AI is excellent at tasks which involve writing quasi-custom boilerplate (eg. tests which require a lot of mocking), and at answering questions of how I should do _X_ in TS/React. For th…

Post by ToValueFunfetti » Wed, Apr 16, 2025, 2:47 PM UTC

gitremote wrote: post #522

ToValueFunfetti wrote: post #506

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The problem is that you don't know which 5% are wrong This is not a problem in my unreliable calculator use-cases; are you disputing that or dropping the analogy? Because I'd love to drop the analogy. You mention IDEs- I routinely use IntelliJ's tab completion, despite it being wrong >>5% of the time. I have to manually verify every suggestion. Sometimes I use it and then edit the final term of a nested object acces…

> This is not a problem in my unreliable calculator use-cases; are you disputing that or dropping the analogy? If you use an unreliable calculator to sum a list of numbers, you then need to use a reliable method to sum the numbers to validate that the unreliable calculator's sum is correct or incorrect.

Post by jimbokun » Wed, Apr 16, 2025, 2:49 PM UTC

ToValueFunfetti wrote: post #340

gitremote wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely not. We'd just do the calculations by hand, which is better than running the 95%-correct calculator and then doing the calculations by hand anyway to verify its output.

Suppose you work in a field where getting calculations right is critical. Your engineers make mistakes less than .01% of the time, but they do a lot of calculations and each mistake could cost $millions or lives. Double- and triple-checking help a lot, but they're costly. Here's a machine that verifies 95% of calculations, but you'd still have to do 5% of the work. Shall I throw it away? Unreliable tools have a good…

Post by that_guy_iain » Wed, Apr 16, 2025, 2:50 PM UTC

layer8 wrote: post #124

that_guy_iain wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this sarcasm? AI has been getting used to handle support requests for years without human checks. Why would they suddenly start adding human checks when the tech is way better than it was years ago?

AI may have been used to pick from a repertoire of stock responses, but not to generate (hallucinate) responses. Thus you may have gotten a response that fails to address your request, but not a response with false information.

Post by ryandrake » Wed, Apr 16, 2025, 2:52 PM UTC

senordevnyc wrote: post #245

ryandrake wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would accept mistakes and inconsistency from a human, especially one not very experienced or skilled. But I expect perfection and consistency from a machine. When I command my computer to do something, I expect it to do it correctly, the same way every time, to convert a particular input to an exact particular output, every time. I don't expect it to guess, or randomly insert garbage, or behave non-deterministicall…

Then you are going to hate the future.