3 ms·

The way this is written gives me the impression they don’t really understand the tools they’re working with. Master your craft. Don’t guess, know.

codegladiator 6mo ago
> Master your craft. Don’t guess, know. You mean add that to my prompt right ?
- Syntaf 6mo ago
  "Make no mistakes"
  - 8ytecoder 6mo ago
    > "NEVER FUCKING GUESS!"
    - dentemple 6mo ago
      "Oops, I guessed! I'm Sorry~~ uWu!!" - Claude Opus 4.6, when asked to run a root cause analysis on itself
    - jbxntuehineoh 6mo ago
      hmmmm ok, what if we add a bit more profanity to that? perhaps some extra exclamation marks? maybe that'll make the agents actually follow the rules?
  - Quarrelsome 6mo ago
    "don't do something that would make me get mad at you." These prompts sound like abusive relationships.
- praptak 6mo ago
  If you also add "don't break the previous rule", you should be 100% safe.
deleted 6mo ago
[deleted]
dentemple 6mo ago
CEO replaces engineering team with AI. CEO learns why this was a bad idea. --- It sucks that there were a bunch of people downstream who were negatively affected by this, but this was an entirely foreseeable problem on his company's part. Even when we consider those real problems with Railway. Software engineers have to evaluate our tools as part of our job. Those complaints about Railway, while legitimate, are still part of the typical sort of questions that every engineering team has to ask of the services they rely on: What does API key grant us access to? What if someone runs a delete command against our data? How do we prepare against losing our prod database? Etc. And answering those questions with, "We'll just follow what their docs say, lol," is almost never good enough of an answer on its own. Which is something that most good engineers know already. This HN submission reads like a classic case of FAFO by cheapening out with the "latest and greatest" models.
- 8note 6mo ago
  these are much better questions for an audit sheet than for engineers to come up with at integration time, mind you. to an extent, its a good job for an agent reviewer for figuring out how screwed your setup is, other than the risk of it mucking things up as part of the review
hoppp 6mo ago
It was written by AI also
jeremyccrane 6mo ago
Top user of cursor. Build AI Agents and LLMs. Very aware of limitations and a senior software dev. Cautionary tale for other builders. DYOR.
- mattgreenrocks 6mo ago
  The takeaway here is to make this sort of scenario impossible in the future. It’s not hard to make that happen, but it might mean you need to manually interact with prod. Anything else is just gambling.
- fg137 6mo ago
  "very aware of limitations" Doesn't seem so to me.

codegladiator 6mo ago

> Master your craft. Don’t guess, know. You mean add that to my prompt right ?

Syntaf 6mo ago
"Make no mistakes"
- 8ytecoder 6mo ago
  > "NEVER FUCKING GUESS!"
  - dentemple 6mo ago
    "Oops, I guessed! I'm Sorry~~ uWu!!" - Claude Opus 4.6, when asked to run a root cause analysis on itself
  - jbxntuehineoh 6mo ago
    hmmmm ok, what if we add a bit more profanity to that? perhaps some extra exclamation marks? maybe that'll make the agents actually follow the rules?
- Quarrelsome 6mo ago
  "don't do something that would make me get mad at you." These prompts sound like abusive relationships.
praptak 6mo ago
If you also add "don't break the previous rule", you should be 100% safe.

deleted 6mo ago

[deleted]

dentemple 6mo ago

CEO replaces engineering team with AI. CEO learns why this was a bad idea. --- It sucks that there were a bunch of people downstream who were negatively affected by this, but this was an entirely foreseeable problem on his company's part. Even when we consider those real problems with Railway. Software engineers have to evaluate our tools as part of our job. Those complaints about Railway, while legitimate, are still part of the typical sort of questions that every engineering team has to ask of the services they rely on: What does API key grant us access to? What if someone runs a delete command against our data? How do we prepare against losing our prod database? Etc. And answering those questions with, "We'll just follow what their docs say, lol," is almost never good enough of an answer on its own. Which is something that most good engineers know already. This HN submission reads like a classic case of FAFO by cheapening out with the "latest and greatest" models.

8note 6mo ago
these are much better questions for an audit sheet than for engineers to come up with at integration time, mind you. to an extent, its a good job for an agent reviewer for figuring out how screwed your setup is, other than the risk of it mucking things up as part of the review

hoppp 6mo ago

It was written by AI also

jeremyccrane 6mo ago

Top user of cursor. Build AI Agents and LLMs. Very aware of limitations and a senior software dev. Cautionary tale for other builders. DYOR.

mattgreenrocks 6mo ago
The takeaway here is to make this sort of scenario impossible in the future. It’s not hard to make that happen, but it might mean you need to manually interact with prod. Anything else is just gambling.
fg137 6mo ago
"very aware of limitations" Doesn't seem so to me.