For the best experience on desktop, install the Chrome extension to track your reading on news.ycombinator.com
Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | history | dilap's commentsregister

Have you tried iterating on style feedback in AGENTS.md? I've been reasonably successful using this to get it to output code in a terse, non-defensive style that matches my hand-written code.

Reload should fix (did for me).

Doesn't look minified, just very dense, almost like progcomp code. First time I've seen an LLM spit out that style of code, I'm impressed!


It's just Claudeslop. It's everywhere. An epidemic. If you're familiar it stands out instantly. (Would you let someone else talk for you? In real life? Like open up your mouth and let a TTS system spit out the sounds and pick the words? No? Then you shouldn't do the same thing with writing!)


I actually think many people would choose this option, if it was possible.

21% of Americans are functionally illiterate according to the University of Alabama.


> 21% of Americans are functionally illiterate according to the University of Alabama.

This was false. University of Alabama said this was according to the National Center for Educational Statistics.[1] NCES said 21% of US adults had low English literacy. This meant could not participate due to a language barrier or a cognitive or physical inability to be interviewed, below level 1, or level 1. Their definition of functionally illiterate in English was below level 1. This was 4.1%.[2]

[1] https://risingtide.ua.edu/education/statewide-ua-literacy-ce...

[2] https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2019/2019179/index.asp


Independently of literacy, I think many people desperately yearn for someone else to write or speak for them.

"Putting their name on documents" or "speaking publicly" is just an excruciating requirement to keep cashing checks, and each time it comes up the first thought bubbling up from the autonomic system is "how the fuck do I get out of this".


It worked for Stephen Hawking, and he was totally worth listening to.


Why Codex GPT-5.5 High instead of Extra High, I wonder?


Personally I don't find this to be true anymore! It's not always great and does still will often tend towards unneeded complexity (especially if not pushed a bit), but I often find GPT 5.5 writing code I would have written myself. This was very much not true with earlier models (who make something that worked, but I'd always have to rewrite to make it "good code").


Personally I found 5.5 a massive step back from 5.4. Both of them still use way too many fallbacks and unnecessary checks, especially if you're having it output php. It's fine if you're just one person and checking everything and able to catch and correct. But it's really bad when you have a team all using it, not checking the output and trusting it's output leading to spaghetti code. Technically works, but very messy and will no doubt lead to buggy code.

It still writes like a junior dev, in that despite AI being able to get a picture of an entire repo, it's changes are typically confined to the task it's working on and will opt to duplicate logic to keep changes contained. Again, technically works, not ideal.


Yeah, it has a tendency to default to "smallest local hack that will work" and code as defensively as possible.

BUT I have had great success using AGENTS.md and becoming better at prompting to get it to not be like this.

Basic approach in AGENTS.md: don't code defensively, yada yada, we have a validation layer at X, no need to check for anything behind that layer. Works well.

An approach I've found helpful when prompting: What would be the best architecture for this change? If you say "do X" it'll tend to just do the hackiest, shortest path thing. If you say, "what's the best way to do X?" it will think more holistically.

That said, who knows, maybe when it's PHP it just really wants to hack ;-)

(Also, yes, you still need to review the code -- it will still do stupid things, so you can't just be pure hands off w/o ending up with quality degredations. The same is true of humans too though in my experience...)


Idk man, I think at this point, if you can't get good code out of frontier models, you're doing something wrong. Plenty of resources out there for you to familiarize yourself with the workflows if you can be bothered.


100%. this is what I tell people who fail at using these models. the model isn't the problem anymore.


way easier to work on a focussed c codebase you own than a mature unwieldy c++ codebase you don't. but it's fine, people will take that work and port to llamacpp and everyone wins.

(the ux of ds4 is fantastic too -- it's dead-easy to get a known-good model, great quant. llamacpp you're much more hacking in the wilderness, w/ many many knobs.)


FWIW, I've found Codex with GPT-5.4 to be better than Opus-4.6; I would say it's at least worth checking out for your use case.


Deepseek R1 was a publically-available, MoE model that was getting a ton of attention before llama4. Llama4 didn't get much attention because it wasn't good.


Also, Gemini 2.5 Pro launched a week before Llama 4.

It was Gemini 2.5 Pro that redeemed Google in the eyes of most people as a valid competitor to OpenAI instead of as a joke, so Meta dropping the ball with Llama 4 was extra bad.


i use a an auto-layout tool, so having windows stacked on top of each other is super-common for me, and the fact that they all peak thru each other (like the screenshot in the blog) looking absolutely terrible drives me crazy


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search:

HN For You