I also try to avoid negative instructions. No scientific proof, just a feeling the same as you, "do not delete the tmp file" can lead too often to deleting the tmp file.
I recall that early LLMs had the problem of not understanding the word "not", which became especially evident and problematic when tasked with summarizing text because the summary would then sometimes directly contradict the original text.
It seems that that problem hasn't really been "fixed", it's just been paved over. But I guess that's the ugly truth most people tend to forget/deny about LLMs: you can't "fix" them because there's not a line of code you can point to that causes a "bug", you can only retrain them and hope the problem goes away. In LLMs, every bug is a "heisenbug" (or should that be "murphybug", as in Murphy's Law?).
Not the best way to do it, but I use xfce, multiple workspaces, each with there own version of AWS Kiro, and each kiro has its own project I am working on. This allows me to "switch context" easier between each project to check how the agents are getting on. Kiro also notifies me when an agent wants somthing. Usually I keep it to about 4 projects at a time, just to keep the context switching down.
I agree with this, I put myself in the "glorious hacks to bend the machine into doing things it was never really intended to do" camp, so the end game is somthing cool, now I can do 3 cool things before lunch instead of 3 cool things a year
But, almost by definition of how LLMs work, if it’s that easy then someone else did it before and the AI is just copying their work for you. This doesn’t fit well with my idea of glorious hacks to bend the machine, personally. I don’t know, maybe it just breaks my self-delusion that I am special and make unique things. At least I get to discover for myself what is possible and how, and hold a sliver of hope that I did something new. Maybe at least my journey there was unique, whereas everyone using an AI basically has the same journey and same destination (modulo random seed I guess.)
Essentially nothing we do as programmers is special or unique. Whatever we're doing, there's a 99.999% chance that somebody, somewhere did it first, just in a different context. The key point is, now we can avoid duplicating that person's effort. I don't see the downside.
Put another way: all of the code that needed to be written has now been written. Now we can move on to more interesting things.
What will really bake peoples' noodles is when it becomes apparent that the same is true for literature. I won't mind if I'm not around to witness that... but it will happen.
I am currently doing 6 projects at the same time, where before I would only of doing one at a time. This includes the requirements, design, implementation and testing.
This is where I think its going, it feels that in the end we will end up with an "llm" language, one that is more suited to how an llm works and less human.
Very interesting, I had a go with Ghidra and AWS Amazon Q, used it to reverse the video feed on a toy drone. I did not think to look for GhidraMCP, would of made it a lot quicker.
In a company, there may me multiple teams, each doing there own projects, PaaS can be within the same company and provide a common way to do stuff without each team having to start from scratch each time.
When I graduated, my first project was to make a UK LED based wait indicator. The problem was, the standard specified "white" light. At the time while LED's where made using UV LED's and phosphors was used to make it white. This meant that for 100 LED's, the coat would be about £100 just for the LED's. In the end we got the specification changed to include a yellow, (we showed that a tungsten light bulb running at 45vac is very yellow anyway, so it was more a correction in the spec than a change)
reply