You ask it to do something, then tell it to do something in a different way, then it assumes it needs to do the refactor in a backward compatible way, or creates migrations for it etc.
It contains (Among other things) stuff like "this is a single user personal project, I'm the only user, this will never be open to the public internet" etc.
It kinda-sorta tones down the proclivity to worry about backwards compatibility and slight edge cases where if someone has edited some template and the new code doesn't support it.
1) use the edit in-place functionality; or
2) ask it to rewrite to remove something
It'll write the prompt as if the agent (codex) knew about the conversation and add "don't do X" etc. At first that bothered but I realized it doesn't really change the output so I stopped caring.
Still, no experience is unique I guess.
Now people think I'm just parroting what Claude said. It sucks. I want my catch phrases back, I guess this is how em dash users felt
They're only a LinkedIn-ism when used to create an unduly dramatic juxtaposition for an otherwise mundane idea. But now they set off people's AI radar when used for any reason at all.
I asked Sol to reduce the length of some documentation we had by making it more concise. It came back after 20 minutes of work, did a line count and was aghast that the line count had somehow increased...
Even then it is conservative. For the love of God, compact the comments.
Comments become a huge maintenance burden, especially in the age of AI. They just grow and grow, and then mislead the AI later on.
That is a dramatic shortcoming, but I fix it with permalinks to other files. https://replicated.live/blog/link
I also love how it'll build local plans with phases, tasks, or decisions, then reference those numbers in those same useless comments.
I wish they trained the bots to be a notch more relaxed and less hysterical. Less is more.
But maybe that's just a consequence of the RL training being essentially AI torture to make them do what we want.