3 ms·

Sometimes I just ride the lightning to see how off course it is willing to go. This is not a productive use of my time but it sure is amusing. In fairness, I’v

by flkiwi 1y ago

Sometimes I just ride the lightning to see how off course it is willing to go. This is not a productive use of my time but it sure is amusing. In fairness, I’ve done the same thing to overconfident junior colleagues.

al_borland 1y ago
I spent yesterday afternoon doing this. It go to the point where it would acknowledge it was wrong, but would keep giving me the same answer. It also said it would only try one more time before giving up, but then kept going.
- dingnuts 1y ago
  this happens to me constantly, it's such a huge waste of time. I'm not convinced any of these tools actually save time. It's all a fucking slot machine and Gell-Mann Amnesia and at the end, you often have nothing that works. I spent like two hours yesterday dicking with aider to make a one line change and it hallucinated an invalid input for the only possible parameter and I wound up using the docs the old fashioned way and doing the task in about two minutes
  - brianwawok 1y ago
    The mistake was using AI for a two minute fix. It totally helps at some tasks. Takes some failures to realize that it does indeed have flaws.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
- CuriouslyC 1y ago
  The worst is when it can't do something right, and it does a horrible mock/hack to get it "working." I had a claude fake benchmark data, that pissed me off a bit, though I did make a major architectural improvement to a tool as result (though the real benchmark would have probably made me do it anyhow) so it wasn't all horrible.
neilv 1y ago
They should've called it "riding the lightning": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_dialogue https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_dialogue
theshrike79 1y ago
It's also educational to play stupid with LLMs Even if you know exactly where the issue is an it would be a 30 second job to do it manually, you can get a better feel on how to direct it to see what you need to tell it to have it find out the issue and fixing it.

by flkiwi 1y ago

al_borland 1y ago

I spent yesterday afternoon doing this. It go to the point where it would acknowledge it was wrong, but would keep giving me the same answer. It also said it would only try one more time before giving up, but then kept going.

dingnuts 1y ago
this happens to me constantly, it's such a huge waste of time. I'm not convinced any of these tools actually save time. It's all a fucking slot machine and Gell-Mann Amnesia and at the end, you often have nothing that works. I spent like two hours yesterday dicking with aider to make a one line change and it hallucinated an invalid input for the only possible parameter and I wound up using the docs the old fashioned way and doing the task in about two minutes
- brianwawok 1y ago
  The mistake was using AI for a two minute fix. It totally helps at some tasks. Takes some failures to realize that it does indeed have flaws.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
CuriouslyC 1y ago
The worst is when it can't do something right, and it does a horrible mock/hack to get it "working." I had a claude fake benchmark data, that pissed me off a bit, though I did make a major architectural improvement to a tool as result (though the real benchmark would have probably made me do it anyhow) so it wasn't all horrible.

neilv 1y ago

They should've called it "riding the lightning": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_dialogue https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_dialogue

theshrike79 1y ago

It's also educational to play stupid with LLMs Even if you know exactly where the issue is an it would be a 30 second job to do it manually, you can get a better feel on how to direct it to see what you need to tell it to have it find out the issue and fixing it.