zlacker

[return to "Cloudlflare builds OAuth with Claude and publishes all the prompts"]
1. infini+X7[view] [source] 2025-06-02 15:11:10
>>gregor+(OP)
From this commit: https://github.com/cloudflare/workers-oauth-provider/commit/...

===

"Fix Claude's bug manually. Claude had a bug in the previous commit. I prompted it multiple times to fix the bug but it kept doing the wrong thing.

So this change is manually written by a human.

I also extended the README to discuss the OAuth 2.1 spec problem."

===

This is super relatable to my experience trying to use these AI tools. They can get halfway there and then struggle immensely.

◧◩
2. diggan+D9[view] [source] 2025-06-02 15:20:31
>>infini+X7
> They can get halfway there and then struggle immensely.

Restart the conversation from scratch. As soon as you get something incorrect, begin from the beginning.

It seems to me like any mistake in a messages chain/conversation instantly poisons the output afterwards, even if you try to "correct" it.

So if something was wrong at one point, you need to go back to the initial message, and adjust it to clarify the prompt enough so it doesn't make that same mistake again, and regenerate the conversation from there on.

◧◩◪
3. dingnu+is[view] [source] 2025-06-02 17:04:46
>>diggan+D9
Can you imagine if Excel worked like this? the formula put out the wrong result, so try again! It's like that scene from The Office where Michael has an accountant "run it again." It's farcical. They have created computers that are bad at math and I will never forgive them.

Also, each try costs money! You're pulling the lever on a god damned slot machine!

I will TRY AGAIN with the same prompt when I start getting a refund for my wasted money and time when the model outputs bullshit, otherwise this is all confirmation and sunk cost bias talking, I'm sure if it.

◧◩◪◨
4. diggan+Hw[view] [source] 2025-06-02 17:36:05
>>dingnu+is
> Can you imagine if Excel worked like this?

I mean, why would I imagine that? Who would want that? It's like the argument against legal marijuana, and someone replies "But would you like your pilot to be high when flying?!". Right tool for the right job, clearly when you want 100% certainty then LLMs aren't the tool for that. Just because they're useful for some things don't mean we have to replace everything with them.

> Also, each try costs money!

I guess you're using some paid API? Try a different way then. I mostly use the web UI from OpenAI, or Codex lately, or ran locally with my own agent using local weights, neither is "each try costs money" more than writing data to my SSD is costing me money.

It's not a holy grail some people paint it, and not sure we're across the "productivity threshold" (>>44160664 ) yet, but it's worth trying it out probably before jumping to conclusions. But no one is forcing you either, YMMV and all that.

[go to top]