+1. It's the most effective way.

It often start going into circles when you have the chat open for medium-long, and starts getting even easily-verifiable tasks wrong, cutting corners, hallucinating APIs, things like that.

Cleaning the prompt and starting from scratch often does the trick.

Of course someone will arrive and say the problem is my CLAUDE.md or whatever it is.

▲

code_biologist 21 hours ago | parent [-]

I agree that never having the argument take place textually is important for LLM performance and behavior. I still think we’re investing the same time and intellectual energy arguing with the model, in going back and restructuring context and prompting to head off / pre-answer a refusal.

	▲	kxrm 21 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Right but the difference is there is inertia you have to fight in an argument. By using /clear you remove all of the context that has built up to energize the argument from the LLM's side. Look at it this way. I can either, keep trying to poke holes in the LLM's context with more prompts with no real guarantee that it won't be enough to remove the argument inertia that has built up in context on its side, or I can /clear and it is over in one turn because the inertia for the argument is all gone. Back when I first started working with coding agents last year I fell into this arguing with the LLMs trap. I've found that it is a total waste of time because /clear ends the argument immediately. You don't even need to spend time trying to preempt it's views. Just re-prompt and 100% of the time, the LLM will just do the work.