4 ms·

> it's almost impossible to get Gemini to not do "helpful" drive-by-refactors Just asking "Explain what this service does?" turns into [No response for three

> it's almost impossible to get Gemini to not do "helpful" drive-by-refactors Just asking "Explain what this service does?" turns into [No response for three minutes...] +729 -522

kylec 8mo ago
"I don't know what did it, but here's what it does now"
cowmoo728 8mo ago
it's also so aggressive about taking out debug log statements and in-progress code. I'll ask it to fill in a new function somewhere else and it will remove all of the half written code from the piece I'm currently working on.
- chankstein38 8mo ago
  I ended up adding a "NEVER REMOVE LOGGING OR DEBUGGING INFO, OPT TO ADD MORE OF IT" to my user instructions and that has _somewhat_ fixed the problem but introduced a new problem where, no matter what I'm talking to it about, it tries to add logging. Even if it's not a code problem. I've had it explain that I could setup an ESP32 with a sensor so that I could get logging from it then write me firmware for it.
  - bratwurst3000 8mo ago
    "I've had it explain that I could setup an ESP32 with a sensor so that I could get logging from it then write me firmware for it." lol did you try it? This so far from everything ratinonal
    - deleted 8mo ago
      [deleted]
  - sd9 8mo ago
    If it's adding too much logging now, have you tried softening the instruction about adding more? "NEVER REMOVE LOGGING OR DEBUGGING INFO. If unsure, bias towards introducing sensible logging." Or just "NEVER REMOVE LOGGING OR DEBUGGING INFO."
SignalStackDev 8mo ago
[dead]
quotemstr 8mo ago
What. You don't have yours ask for edit approval?
- embedding-shape 8mo ago
  Who has time for that? This is how I run codex: `codex --sandbox danger-full-access --dangerously-bypass-approvals-and-sandbox --search exec "$PROMPT"`, having to approve each change would effectively destroy the entire point of using an agent, at least for me. Edit: obviously inside something so it doesn't have access to the rest of my system, but enough access to be useful.
  - quotemstr 8mo ago
    I wouldn't even think of letting an agent work in that made. Even the best of them produce garbage code unless I keep them on a tight leash. And no, not a skill issue. What I don't have time to do is debug obvious slop.
    - embedding-shape 8mo ago
      I keep it on a tight leash too, not sure how that's related. What gets edited on disk is very different from what gets committed.
    - kees99 8mo ago
      I ended up running codex with all the "danger" flags, but in a throw-away VM with copy-on-write access to code folders. Built-in approval thing sounds like a good idea, but in practice it's unusable. Typical session for me was like: About to run "sed -n '1,100p' example.cpp", approve? About to run "sed -n '100,200p' example.cpp", approve? About to run "sed -n '200,300p' example.cpp", approve? Could very well be a skill issue, but that was mighty annoying, and with no obvious fix (options "don't ask again for ...." were not helping).
      - quotemstr 8mo ago
        One decent approach (which Codex implements, and some others) is to run these commands in a real-only sandbox without approval and let the model ask your approval when it wants to run outside the sandbox. An even better approach is just doing abstract interpretation over shell command proposals. You want something like codex -a read-only -s on-failure (from memory: look up the exact flags)
BartShoot 8mo ago
if you had to ask it obviously needs to refactor code for clarity so next person does not need to ask
moffkalast 8mo ago
I've seen Kimi do this a ton as well, so insufferable.

> it's almost impossible to get Gemini to not do "helpful" drive-by-refactors Just asking "Explain what this service does?" turns into [No response for three minutes...] +729 -522

kylec 8mo ago

"I don't know what did it, but here's what it does now"

cowmoo728 8mo ago

it's also so aggressive about taking out debug log statements and in-progress code. I'll ask it to fill in a new function somewhere else and it will remove all of the half written code from the piece I'm currently working on.

chankstein38 8mo ago
I ended up adding a "NEVER REMOVE LOGGING OR DEBUGGING INFO, OPT TO ADD MORE OF IT" to my user instructions and that has _somewhat_ fixed the problem but introduced a new problem where, no matter what I'm talking to it about, it tries to add logging. Even if it's not a code problem. I've had it explain that I could setup an ESP32 with a sensor so that I could get logging from it then write me firmware for it.
- bratwurst3000 8mo ago
  "I've had it explain that I could setup an ESP32 with a sensor so that I could get logging from it then write me firmware for it." lol did you try it? This so far from everything ratinonal
  - deleted 8mo ago
    [deleted]
- sd9 8mo ago
  If it's adding too much logging now, have you tried softening the instruction about adding more? "NEVER REMOVE LOGGING OR DEBUGGING INFO. If unsure, bias towards introducing sensible logging." Or just "NEVER REMOVE LOGGING OR DEBUGGING INFO."

SignalStackDev 8mo ago

[dead]

quotemstr 8mo ago

What. You don't have yours ask for edit approval?

embedding-shape 8mo ago
Who has time for that? This is how I run codex: `codex --sandbox danger-full-access --dangerously-bypass-approvals-and-sandbox --search exec "$PROMPT"`, having to approve each change would effectively destroy the entire point of using an agent, at least for me. Edit: obviously inside something so it doesn't have access to the rest of my system, but enough access to be useful.
- quotemstr 8mo ago
  I wouldn't even think of letting an agent work in that made. Even the best of them produce garbage code unless I keep them on a tight leash. And no, not a skill issue. What I don't have time to do is debug obvious slop.
  - embedding-shape 8mo ago
    I keep it on a tight leash too, not sure how that's related. What gets edited on disk is very different from what gets committed.
  - kees99 8mo ago
    I ended up running codex with all the "danger" flags, but in a throw-away VM with copy-on-write access to code folders. Built-in approval thing sounds like a good idea, but in practice it's unusable. Typical session for me was like: About to run "sed -n '1,100p' example.cpp", approve? About to run "sed -n '100,200p' example.cpp", approve? About to run "sed -n '200,300p' example.cpp", approve? Could very well be a skill issue, but that was mighty annoying, and with no obvious fix (options "don't ask again for ...." were not helping).
    - quotemstr 8mo ago
      One decent approach (which Codex implements, and some others) is to run these commands in a real-only sandbox without approval and let the model ask your approval when it wants to run outside the sandbox. An even better approach is just doing abstract interpretation over shell command proposals. You want something like codex -a read-only -s on-failure (from memory: look up the exact flags)

BartShoot 8mo ago

if you had to ask it obviously needs to refactor code for clarity so next person does not need to ask

moffkalast 8mo ago

I've seen Kimi do this a ton as well, so insufferable.