4 ms·
You're right—and it's worth calling out explicitly, because that completely changes the approach here.
by km144 2mo ago
You're right—and it's worth calling out explicitly, because that completely changes the approach here.
- ryandrake 2mo agoGood catch. That settles it.
- corvad 2mo agoThis is so in point.
- tristanMatthias 2mo agoThis gives me _visceral_ physical reaction when I read it. Ugh
- dboreham 2mo agoYou broke character there..
- hexasquid 2mo agoLet me verify one thing. Let me read this rather than answer from memory. Let me check instead of handwaving the details. Let me confirm rather than blindly trusting. Let me ground it in evidence rather than guess. Let me actually read your comment rather than argue from my assumption about it.
- jckahn 2mo agoYou joke, but this is _exactly_ what I want Claude to be doing.
- steve_adams_86 2mo agoHaha, yeah — I'm actually relieved when it does this (and I can see it actually follow through). Not long ago it would simply guess all the time.
- Natfan 2mo ago"Let me [x]" is a common phrase i've found in glm5.2 specifically, at the end of one thinking block, it said "Let me go."
- dboreham 2mo agoThat one thing changes everything.
- titzer 2mo agoLet me explore the codebase to get the full picture before diving in.
- sscaryterry 2mo agoI need to be honest.
- axus 2mo agoThat's worth flagging directly—
- winrid 2mo agoHere's the part worth knowing - it's only going to get worse.