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
This to me is why I think these tools don't have actual understanding, and are instead producing emergent output from pooling an incomprehensibly large set of pattern-recognized data.

>>myster+ra
> these tools don't have actual understanding, and are instead producing emergent output from pooling an incomprehensibly large set of pattern-recognized data

I mean, bypassing the fact that "actual understanding" doesn't have any consensus about what it is, does it matter if it's "actual understanding" or "kind of understanding", or even "barely understanding", as long as it produces the results you expect?

>>diggan+0b
> as long as it produces the results you expect?

But it's more the case of "until it doesn't produce the results you expect" and then what do you do?

>>scepti+jc
Then you teach it. Even humans don't always produce the results we expect.

>>seunos+GE
Have you tried that? It generally doesn't go so well.

In this example there are several commits where you can see they needed to fix the code because they couldn't get (teach) the LLM to generate the required code.

And there's no memory there, you open a new prompt and it's forgotten everything you said previously.