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.
replyI 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.
replyIf it's adding too much logging now, have you tried softening the instruction about adding more?
reply"NEVER REMOVE LOGGING OR DEBUGGING INFO. If unsure, bias towards introducing sensible logging."
Or just
"NEVER REMOVE LOGGING OR DEBUGGING INFO."
"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
replydeleted
replyif you had to ask it obviously needs to refactor code for clarity so next person does not need to ask
replyWhat. You don't have yours ask for edit approval?
replyThe depressing truth is most I know just run all these tools in /yolo mode or equivalents.
replyBecause your coworkers definitely are, and we're stack ranked, so it's a race (literally) to the bottom. Just send it...
(All this actually seems to do is push the burden on to their coworkers as reviewers, for what it's worth)
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.
replyEdit: obviously inside something so it doesn't have access to the rest of my system, but enough access to be useful.
>Who has time for that?
replyPeople that don't put out slop, mostly.
That's another thing entirely, I still review and manually decide the exact design and architecture of the code, with more care now than before. Doesn't mean I want the UI of the agent to need manual approval of each small change it does.
replyI 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.
replyWhat I don't have time to do is debug obvious slop.
I ended up running codex with all the "danger" flags, but in a throw-away VM with copy-on-write access to code folders.
replyBuilt-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?
I keep it on a tight leash too, not sure how that's related. What gets edited on disk is very different from what gets committed.
replyAsk mode exists, I think the models work on the assumption that if you're allowing edits then of course you must want edits.
reply"I don't know what did it, but here's what it does now"
replyI've seen Kimi do this a ton as well, so insufferable.
reply[dead]
reply