[sillysaurusx]

I was reading through the Claude docs and it was talking about common patterns to preserve context across sessions. One pattern was a "handoff file", which they explained like "have claude save a summary of the current session into a handoff file, start a new session, then tell it to read the file."

That sounded like a nice idea, so I made it effortless beyond typing /handoff.

The generated docs turned out to be really handy for me personally, so I kept using it, and committed them into my project as they're generated.

[dataviz1000]

Oh, so the word 'gate' is probably in the documentation also!

I see. So this isn't as scary. Claude is helping me understand how to use it properly.

[nerdsniper]

I have noticed similar phenomena with Claude, where its vocabulary subtly shifts how I think/frame/write about things or points me to subtle gaps in my own understanding. And I also usually come around to understand that it's often not arbitrary. But I do think some confirmation bias is at play: when it tries to shift me into the wrong directions repeatedly, I learn how to make it stop doing that.

It definitely adds a layer of cognitive load, in wrangling/shepherding/accomodating/accepting the unpredictable personalities and stochastic behaviors of the agents. It has strong default behaviors for certain small tasks, and where humans would eventually habituate prescribed procedures/requirements, the LLM's never really internalize my preferences. In that way, they are more like contractors than employees.

[perching_aix]

If this was more than just a gut reaction [0], I have a tough time navigating what swings this topic between scary and not scary for you.

Unless you're a true and invested believer of souls, free will, and other spiritualistic nonsense (or have a vested political affiliation to pretend so), it should be tautological that everything you read and experience biases you. LLM output then is no different.

If you are a believer, then either nothing ever did, or LLMs are special in some way, or everything else is. Which just doesn't make sense to me.

[0] It's jarring to observe the boundaries of one's agency, sure, but LLMs are really nothing special in this way. For example, I somewhat frequently catch myself using words and phrases I saw earlier during the day elsewhere, even if I did not process them consciously.

[airstrike]

Why would it be scary? Claude is just parroting other human knowledge. It has no goal or agency.

[adrianN]

You can’t verify that there is no influence by the makers of Claude.

[airstrike]

I would certainly expect everyone to assume that influence rather than not.

[fwipsy]

By that logic, nothing computers do is scary.

[OJFord]

Yes I think that is their argument.

[rendx]

Computer don't do anything.

[perching_aix]

What's their value then?

[filoleg]

Just like with absolutely any other tool, their value is in what it enables humans using them to accomplish.

E.g., a hammer doesn't do anything, and neither does a lawnmower. It would be silly to argue (just because these tools are static objects doing nothing in the absence of direct human involvement) that those tools don't have a very clear value.