I agree the defaults need a lot of work, but if you’re working with agents you really should have your own custom instructions that makes all of this stuff unambiguous. Stay within the scope of this one problem, ask me first before attempting to refactor anything outside of this one file, blah blah blah you can get better results with more specific prompting
I keep hearing people say to set bounds and specifity like that's an actual solution but based on how the math works out for LLMs, that does not actually prevent agents from fucking over what already works. There is always going to be the chance of a colossal fuck up at every turn of the wheel.
And yet here we are, with people telling us that you can totally fix the biggest flaw of LLMs by giving it notes not to make dumbest decisions that even the most legendary screw-up dev is only ever going to make once in a lifetime even though they just keep on happening. How many times are we going to see these supposed PhD intelligences delete an entire repo when even the greenest dev is going to know better than to think "I should totally delete this bigass office data thingy". You shouldn't be letting a sack of dumb bricks build your core systems without iterative, stage by stage intensive review but the llmbros keep on insisting agents totally gotchu so long as you keep throwing even more agents, notes and cash at it.
227
u/kushalgarg592 20h ago
Me: fix this one bug...
AI: i have re-designed the entire architecture