| ▲ | lou1306 7 hours ago |
| They're searching for multiple substrings in a single pass, regexes are the optimal solution for that. |
|
| ▲ | noosphr 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| The issue isn't that regex are a solution to find a substring. The issue is that you shouldn't be looking for substrings in the first place. This has buttbuttin energy. Welcome to the 80s I guess. |
| |
| ▲ | lou1306 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > The issue is that you shouldn't be looking for substrings in the first place. Why? They clearly just want to log conversations that are likely to display extreme user frustration with minimal overhead. They could do a full-blown NLP-driven sentiment analysis on every prompt but I reckon it would not be as cost-effective as this. | |
| ▲ | 8cvor6j844qw_d6 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Very likely vibe coded. I've seen Claude Code went with a regex approach for a similar sentiment-related task. | | |
| ▲ | mr_00ff00 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | My understanding of vibe coding is when someone doesn’t look at the code and just uses prompts until the app “looks and acts” correct. I doubt you are making regex and not looking at it, even if it was AI generated. |
| |
| ▲ | rdiddly 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Clbuttic! | |
| ▲ | 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
|
| ▲ | BoppreH 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| It's fast, but it'll miss a ton of cases. This feels like it would be better served by a prompt instruction, or an additional tiny neural network. And some of the entries are too short and will create false positives. It'll match the word "offset" ("ffs"), for example. EDIT: no it won't, I missed the \b. Still sounds weird to me. |
| |
| ▲ | hk__2 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | It’s fast and it matches 80% of the cases. There’s no point in overengineering it. | | |
| ▲ | NitpickLawyer 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | > There’s no point in overengineering it. I swear this whole thread about regexes is just fake rage at something, and I bet it'd be reversed had they used something heavier (omg, look they're using an LLM call where a simple regex would have worked, lul)... |
| |
| ▲ | vharuck 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The pattern only matches if both ends are word boundaries. So "diffs" won't match, but "Oh, ffs!" will. It's also why they had to use the pattern "shit(ty|tiest)" instead of just "shit". | | |
|
