undefined

points

[-]

  a9284923-141a-434a-bfbb-52de7329861d
  d48d5a68-82cd-4988-b95c-c8c034003cd0
  5c236e02-16ea-42b1-b935-3a6a768e3655
  22e09356-08ce-4b2c-a8fd-596d818b1e8a
  4cb894f7-c3ed-4b8d-86c6-0242200ea333

Amusingly (not really), this is me trying to get sessions to resume to then get feedback ids and it being an absolute chore to get it to give me the commands to resume these conversations but it keeps messing things up: cf764035-0a1d-4c3f-811d-d70e5b1feeef

by koverstreet4 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

I'll have a look. The CoT switch you mentioned will help, I'll take a look at that too, but my suspicion is that this isn't a CoT issue - it's a model preference issue.

Comparing Opus vs. Qwen 27b on similar problems, Opus is sharper and more effective at implementation - but will flat out ignore issues and insist "everything is fine" that Qwen is able to spot and demonstrate solid understanding of. Opus understands the issues perfectly well, it just avoids them.

This correlates with what I've observed about the underlying personalities (and you guys put out a paper the other day that shows you guys are starting to understand it in these terms - functionally modeling feelings in models). On the whole Opus is very stable personality wise and an effective thinker, I want to complement you guys on that, and it definitely contrasts with behaviors I've seen from OpenAI. But when I do see Opus miss things that it should get, it seems to be a combination of avoidant tendencies and too much of a push to "just get it done and move into the next task" from RHLF.

by freedomben4 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

How much of the code/context gets attached in the /bug report?

by bcherny4 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

When you submit a /bug we get a way to see the contents of the conversation. We don't see anything else in your codebase.

by murkt1 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Was there a change in Claude Code system prompt at that time that nudges Claude into simplistic thinking?

Here is a gist that tries to patch the system prompt to make Claude behave better https://gist.github.com/roman01la/483d1db15043018096ac3babf5...

I haven’t personally tried it yet. I do certainly battle Claude quite a lot with “no I don’t want quick-n-easy wrong solution just because it’s two lines of code, I want best solution in the long run”.

If the system prompt indeed prefers laziness in 5:1 ratio, that explains a lot.

I will submit /bug in a few next conversations, when it occurs next.

by Avamander23 minutes ago|

parent|

[-]

That Gist does explain quite a few flaws Claude has. I wonder if MEMORY.md is sufficient to counteract the prompt without patching.

by dev_l1x_be32 minutes ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

Holy sweet LLM, this gist is crazy. Why did they do this to themselves? I am going to try this at home, it might actually fix Claude.

by murkt20 minutes ago|

parent|

[-]

Remember Sonnet 3.5 and 3.7? They were happy to throw abstraction on top of abstraction on top of abstraction. Still a lot of people have “do not over-engineer, do not design for the future” and similar stuff in their CLAUDE.md files.

So I think the system prompt just pushes it way too hard to “simple” direction. At least for some people. I was doing a small change in one of my projects today, and I was quite happy with “keep it stupid and hacky” approach there.

And in the other project I am like “NO! WORK A LOT! DO YOUR BEST! BE HAPPY TO WORK HARD!”

So it depends.

by enigmo1 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

[dead]