But I still find myself needing (strongly) to let Claude know when it's made a breakthrough that would have been hard work on my own.

▲

CharlesW 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Good creators tend to treat their tools with respect, and I can't imagine any reason we shouldn't feel gratitude toward our tools after a particularly satisfying session.

Also, there may be selfish reasons to do this as well: (1) "Should We Respect LLMs? A Cross-Lingual Study on the Influence of Prompt Politeness on LLM Performance" https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.14531 (2) "Three Things to Know About Prompting LLMs" https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/three-things-to-know-abo...

▲

groby_b 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Curious: Do you also laud your compiler for particularly good optimizations?

▲

awesome_dude 2 days ago | parent [-]

There's a couple of things there

1. I don't see the output of the compiler, as in, all I get is an executable blob. It could be inspected, but I don't think that I ever have in my 20+ year career. Maybe I lie and I've rocked up with a Hex editor once or twice, out of pure curiousity, but I've never got past looking for strings that I recognise.

2. When I use Claude, I am using it to do things that I can do, by hand, myself. I am reviewing the code as I go along, and I know what I want it to do because it's what I would be writing myself if I didn't have Claude (or Gemini for that matter).

So, no, I have never congratulated the compiler (or interpreter, linker, assembler, or even the CPU).

Finally, I view the AI as a pairing partner, sometimes it's better than me, sometimes it's not, and I have to be "in the game" in order to make sure I don't end up with a vibe coded mess.

edit: This is from yesterday (Claude had just fixed a bug for me - all I did was paste the block of code that the bug was in, and say "x behaviour but getting y behaviour instead)

perfect, thanks

Edit You're welcome! That was a tricky bug - using rowCount instead of colCount in the index calculation is the kind of subtle error that can be really hard to spot. It's especially sneaky because row 0 worked correctly by accident, making it seem like the logic was mostly right. Glad we got it sorted out! Your Gaps redeal should now work properly with all the 2s (and other correctly placed cards) staying in their proper positions across all rows.

▲

LtWorf 2 days ago | parent [-]

You've got to check the assembly, not the binary, for optimisations…

	▲	awesome_dude 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Yeah - or I could just not care unless I have to (which, in the last 20 plus years, has been... let me think... oh, right... never)