| ▲ | mullingitover 4 hours ago |
| > it's almost impossible to get Gemini to not do "helpful" drive-by-refactors Just asking "Explain what this service does?" turns into [No response for three minutes...] +729 -522 |
|
| ▲ | cowmoo728 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| it's also so aggressive about taking out debug log statements and in-progress code. I'll ask it to fill in a new function somewhere else and it will remove all of the half written code from the piece I'm currently working on. |
| |
| ▲ | chankstein38 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | I ended up adding a "NEVER REMOVE LOGGING OR DEBUGGING INFO, OPT TO ADD MORE OF IT" to my user instructions and that has _somewhat_ fixed the problem but introduced a new problem where, no matter what I'm talking to it about, it tries to add logging. Even if it's not a code problem. I've had it explain that I could setup an ESP32 with a sensor so that I could get logging from it then write me firmware for it. | | |
| ▲ | sd9 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | If it's adding too much logging now, have you tried softening the instruction about adding more? "NEVER REMOVE LOGGING OR DEBUGGING INFO. If unsure, bias towards introducing sensible logging." Or just "NEVER REMOVE LOGGING OR DEBUGGING INFO." | |
| ▲ | bratwurst3000 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | "I've had it explain that I could setup an ESP32 with a sensor so that I could get logging from it then write me firmware for it."
lol
did you try it? This so far from everything ratinonal | | |
|
|
|
| ▲ | BartShoot 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| if you had to ask it obviously needs to refactor code for clarity so next person does not need to ask |
|
| ▲ | quotemstr 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| What. You don't have yours ask for edit approval? |
| |
| ▲ | embedding-shape 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Who has time for that? This is how I run codex: `codex --sandbox danger-full-access --dangerously-bypass-approvals-and-sandbox --search exec "$PROMPT"`, having to approve each change would effectively destroy the entire point of using an agent, at least for me. Edit: obviously inside something so it doesn't have access to the rest of my system, but enough access to be useful. | | |
| ▲ | well_ackshually 36 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | >Who has time for that? People that don't put out slop, mostly. | |
| ▲ | quotemstr 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I wouldn't even think of letting an agent work in that made. Even the best of them produce garbage code unless I keep them on a tight leash. And no, not a skill issue. What I don't have time to do is debug obvious slop. | | |
| ▲ | kees99 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | I ended up running codex with all the "danger" flags, but in a throw-away VM with copy-on-write access to code folders. Built-in approval thing sounds like a good idea, but in practice it's unusable. Typical session for me was like: About to run "sed -n '1,100p' example.cpp", approve?
About to run "sed -n '100,200p' example.cpp", approve?
About to run "sed -n '200,300p' example.cpp", approve?
Could very well be a skill issue, but that was mighty annoying, and with no obvious fix (options "don't ask again for ...." were not helping). |
|
| |
| ▲ | mullingitover an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Ask mode exists, I think the models work on the assumption that if you're allowing edits then of course you must want edits. |
|
|
| ▲ | kylec 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| "I don't know what did it, but here's what it does now" |
|
| ▲ | SignalStackDev 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| [dead] |
