zlacker

>>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.

>>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.

>>diggan+D9
Chatbot UIs really need better support for conversation branching all around. It's very handy to be able to just right-click on any random message in the conversation in LM Studio and say, "branch from here".

>>int_19+bx
Maybe it's contrarian, maybe it's not, but I don't think Chat UIs are well suited for software engineering/programming at all, we need something completely different. Being able to branch conversations and such would be useful, but probably not for the way I do software. Besides, I'm rarely beyond 3 messages (1 system, 1 user, 1 assistant) in any usage of the chat UIs. Maybe it's more useful to people with different workflows.

>>diggan+Kx
I don't see how you'd avoid using chat if you need the bot to work on some bug end-to-end. I usually have many rounds in a chat session, first asking it to identify the overall approach, reviewing and approving that, then one or more rounds for coding, and several more to request edits as needed.

If you only ever ask it for trivial changes that don't require past context to make sense, then chat is indeed overkill. But we already have different UX approaches for that - e.g. some IDEs watch for specially formatted comments to trigger code generation, so you literally just type what you want right there in the editor, exactly where you want the code to go.

>>int_19+Na3
Yeah, I'd agree you want to iterate, but I'm not sure the UX of "Log of messages, where some of yours, some are tool calls, others are the assistant" and the workflow of "Add more messages into the log of messages"/"Change existing messages" is the right broad UX for this type of work.

I'm sorry I can't substantiate it more than that, as my own head is still trying to wrap itself around what I think is needed instead. Still, sounds very "fluffy" even when I read it back myself.