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

Shall I implement it? No

gist.github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

541–550 of 603 posts

Re: Shall I implement it? No

#541

Post by duxup »

inerte wrote: post #144

Codex has always been better at following agents.md and prompts more, but I would say in the last 3 months both Claude Code got worse (freestyling like we see here) and Codex got EVEN more strict. 80% of the time I ask Claude Code a question, it kinda assumes I am asking because I disagree with something it said, then acts on a supposition. I've resorted to append things like "THIS IS JUST A QUESTION. DO NOT EDIT COD…

Your experience with Claude is surprising to me.

At least for me when using Claude in VSCode (extension) there’s clearly defined “plan mode” and “ask before edits” and “edit automatically”.

I’ve never had it disregard those modes.

Re: Shall I implement it? No

#542

Post by lesostep »

what wrote: post #426
jkaplowitz wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At least if this "Store cookies?" question is implicitly referencing EU regulations, those regulations don't require consent for cookies which are considered essential, including a cookie to store the response to the consent question (but certainly not advertising tracking cookies). So the respectful replacement for "Ask me again" is "Essential cookies only" (or some equivalent wording to "Essential" like "Required"…

I’ve not seen a site that remembers your selection of “reject all”/“essential only”. It would actually be hard to argue that it would count as an essential cookie, nothing about the site depends on remembering your rejection. I guess that makes “maybe later” more reasonable since it’s going to ask you every time until you relent.

"Reject all" doesn't have to be cookie, the answer could go to the browser storage.

Basically it just exists in your browser, telling it "the user didn't agree to cookies, so don't send this data and don't render those blocks". The only thing that web server knows is that requests come from someone who didn't send any cookies.

I believe it's a very common implementation.

Re: Shall I implement it? No

#543

Post by mikepurvis »

d1sxeyes wrote: post #207
nineteen999 wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Don't act, just a question" works for me.

Try /btw

I found that helpful for a question but the btw query seemed to go to a subagent that couldn't interrupt or direct the main one. So it really was just for informational questions, not "hey what if we did x instead of y?"

Re: Shall I implement it? No

#544

Post by leerob »

dagss wrote: post #309
lubujackson wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like people are sleeping on Cursor, no idea why more devs don't talk about it. It has a great "Ask" mode, the debugging mode has recently gotten more powerful, and it's plan mode has started to look more like Claude Code's plans, when I test them head to head.

I used to love Cursor but as I started to rely on agent more and more it just got way too tedious having to Accept every change. I ended up spending time just clicking "Accept file" 20x now and then, accepting changes from past 5 chats... PR reviews and tying review to git make more sense at this point for me than the diff tracking Cursor has on the side. Cancelling my cursor before next card charge solely due to the…

You can disable this if you want, it's under "Inline Diffs" in the Cursor settings.

Re: Shall I implement it? No

#547

Post by ramon156 »

opus 4.6 seems to get dumber every day, I remember a month ago that it could follow very specific cases, now it just really wants to write code, so much that it ignores what I ask it.

All these "it was better before" comments might be a fallacy, maybe nothing changed but I am doing something completely different now.

Re: Shall I implement it? No

#548

Post by Lockal »

Why is this in the top of HN?

1) That's just an implementation specifics of specific LLM harness, where user switched from Plan mode to Build. The result is somewhat similar to "What will happen if you assign Build and Build+Run to the same hotkey".

2) All LLM spit out A LOT of garbage like this, check https://www.reddit.com/r/ClaudeAI/ or https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/, a lot of funny moments, but not really an interesting thing...

Re: Shall I implement it? No

#549

Post by cestith »

I think I understand the trepidation a lot of people are having with prompting an LLM to get software developed or operational computer work performed. Some of us got into the field in part because people tend to generate misunderstandings, but computers used to do exactly what they were told.

Yes, bugs exist, but that’s us not telling the computer what to do correctly. Lately there are all sorts of examples, like in this thread, of the computer misunderstanding people. The computer is now a weak point in the chain from customer requests to specs to code. That can be a scary change.

Re: Shall I implement it? No

#550

Post by vova_hn2 »

croes wrote: post #414
vova_hn2 wrote: post #413

I kinda agree with the clanker on this one. You send it a request with all the context just to ask it to do nothing? It doesn't make any sense, if you want it to do nothing just don't trigger it, that's all.

In no context does no means yes if the question is "shall I implement it"

I used the word "context" in a purely technical sense in relation to LLMs: the input tokens that you send to an LLM.

Every time you send what appears as a "chat message" in any of the programs that let you "chat" with an "AI", what you really do is sending the whole conversation history (all previous messages, tool calls and responses) as an input and asking model to generate an output.

There is no conceivable scenario when sending " + no" makes any sense.

Best case scenario is:

" + no" -> "Okay, I won't do it."

In this case you've just waisted a lot of input tokens, that someone (hopefully, not you) has to pay for, to generate an absolutely pointless message that says "Okay, I won't do it.". There is no value in this message. There is bo reason to waste time and computational resources to generate this message.

Worst case scenario is what happened on the screenshot.

There is no good scenario when this input produces a valuable output.

If you want your "agent" or "model" or whatever to do nothing you just don't trigger it. It won't do anything on it's own, it doesn't wait for your response, it doesn't need your response.

I don't understand why, in this thread, every time I try to point out how nonsensical is the behavior that they want is from technical perspective (from the perspective of knowing how these tools actually work) people just cling to there anthropomorphized mind model of the LLM and insist on getting angry.

"It acts like a bad human being, therefore it's bad, useless and dangerous"

I don't even know what to say to this.

P. S. If you wind this message hard to read and understand, I'm sorry about it, I don't know how to word it better. HN disallows to use LLMs to edit comments, but I think that sending a link to an LLM-edited version of the comment should be ok:

https://chatgpt.com/s/t_69b423f52bc88191af36a56993d55aa8

Post reply on HN