[ilikepi]

> One is that with some frontends you can't actually get the raw context window so the LLM is actually more capable of seeing what happened than you are. The other is that these context windows are often giant and making the LLM read it for you and guess at what happened is a lot faster than reading it yourself to guess what happened.

I feel like this is some bizzaro-world variant of the halting problem. Like...it seems bonkers to me that having the AI re-read the context window would produce a meaningful answer about what went wrong...because it itself is the thing that produced the bad result given all of the context.

[gpm]

It seems like a totally different task to me, which should have totally different failure conditions. Not being able to work out the right thing to do doesn't mean it shouldn't be able to guess why it did what it did do. It's also notable here that these are probabilistic approximators, just because it did the wrong thing (with some probability) doesn't mean its not also capable of doing the right thing (with some probability)... but that's not even necessary here...

You also see behaviour when using them where they understand that previous "AI-turns" weren't perfect, so they aren't entirely over indexing on "I did the right thing for sure". Here's an actual snippet of a transcript where, without my intervention, claude realized it did the wrong thing and attempted to undo it

> Let me also remove the unused function to clean up the warning:

> * Search files for regex `run_query_with_visibility_and_fields`

> * Delete `<redacted>/src/main.rs`

> Oops! I made a mistake. Let me restore the file:

> * Terminal `jj undo ; ji commit -m "Undid accidental file deletion"`

It more or less succeeded too, `jj undo` is objectively the wrong command to run here, but it was running with a prompt asking it to commit after every terminal command, which meant it had just committed prior to this, which made this work basically as intended.