Lulz.
-
Lulz.
So, I asked Claude.ai to convert a Bash script for Linux to a functionally equivalent PowerShell script for Windows. It did pretty well but there were some funsies.
In the Bash script, I send an ASNI escape sequence to clear the screen to the terminal, because this is the most portable way of doing it. Claude faithfully replicated that, in a separate function at that.
I pointed out to it that in PowerShell, there's a perfectly good Clear-Host command that does just that. "Good point," said it, "Let me fix that".
I looked at the "fix" and - there was nothing to clear the screen at all. No escape sequence, no Clear-Host, not its alias "clear" - nothing.
So, I pointed out to it that the "fix" is doing worse than the original. It basically said "Oops", although in more words. Turns out, when "fixing" it, it first replaced the operator that outputs the escape sequence in the function that clears the screen with Clear-Host, but then also deleted the whole function because it is no longer needed (since there's a single operator that does its job) - but forgot to replace the function call with this operator.
-
Lulz.
So, I asked Claude.ai to convert a Bash script for Linux to a functionally equivalent PowerShell script for Windows. It did pretty well but there were some funsies.
In the Bash script, I send an ASNI escape sequence to clear the screen to the terminal, because this is the most portable way of doing it. Claude faithfully replicated that, in a separate function at that.
I pointed out to it that in PowerShell, there's a perfectly good Clear-Host command that does just that. "Good point," said it, "Let me fix that".
I looked at the "fix" and - there was nothing to clear the screen at all. No escape sequence, no Clear-Host, not its alias "clear" - nothing.
So, I pointed out to it that the "fix" is doing worse than the original. It basically said "Oops", although in more words. Turns out, when "fixing" it, it first replaced the operator that outputs the escape sequence in the function that clears the screen with Clear-Host, but then also deleted the whole function because it is no longer needed (since there's a single operator that does its job) - but forgot to replace the function call with this operator.
@bontchev How long did this take, from beginning to end?
-
@bontchev How long did this take, from beginning to end?
@AAKL Oh, it generated the first PowerShell script almost instantly. The whole process (including fixing the bug) took just a few minutes; most of the time was spent by me typing. Despite all its idiosyncrasies and occasional bugs, Claude is a very useful tool. Saved me a lot of time, especially given that I don't know PowerShell very well and would have wasted a lot of time learning how to do various things.
-
@AAKL Oh, it generated the first PowerShell script almost instantly. The whole process (including fixing the bug) took just a few minutes; most of the time was spent by me typing. Despite all its idiosyncrasies and occasional bugs, Claude is a very useful tool. Saved me a lot of time, especially given that I don't know PowerShell very well and would have wasted a lot of time learning how to do various things.
@bontchev A saving grace, for the comedy of errors that you ran into.
-
@bontchev A saving grace, for the comedy of errors that you ran into.
@AAKL Oh, yes. *Never* trust blindly any of its output and *always* examine every single line of code that it has generated. But it is still very useful and saves a lot of time.
-
@AAKL Oh, yes. *Never* trust blindly any of its output and *always* examine every single line of code that it has generated. But it is still very useful and saves a lot of time.
@bontchev Here's my question: if you were to repeat the exact same thing all over again, would the agent do the same mistakes all over again? And is there someone on the receiving end who reviews this interaction and prompts a correction for similar future interactions?
-
R relay@relay.infosec.exchange shared this topic
-
@bontchev Here's my question: if you were to repeat the exact same thing all over again, would the agent do the same mistakes all over again? And is there someone on the receiving end who reviews this interaction and prompts a correction for similar future interactions?
@AAKL I don't know. On the one hand, LLMs are somewhat stochastic, so there might be differences. On the other hand, they are trained on particular pieces of text, so at least the responses to common tasks should be the same. There might also be other factors - e.g., if the LLM remembers its previous interactions with me.
-
@AAKL I don't know. On the one hand, LLMs are somewhat stochastic, so there might be differences. On the other hand, they are trained on particular pieces of text, so at least the responses to common tasks should be the same. There might also be other factors - e.g., if the LLM remembers its previous interactions with me.
@AAKL You might want to test it yourself. Here's a link to our conversation, so that you can see the prompting:
Here's the original Bash script:
(You might want to download it and upload it to Claude, like I did; I think Claude had mentioned to me in the past that the environment in which it experiments with code has no network access.)
And here is the final PowerShell script it generated:
-
@AAKL You might want to test it yourself. Here's a link to our conversation, so that you can see the prompting:
Here's the original Bash script:
(You might want to download it and upload it to Claude, like I did; I think Claude had mentioned to me in the past that the environment in which it experiments with code has no network access.)
And here is the final PowerShell script it generated:
@bontchev I'll pass, thanks. But this certainly puts the superintelligence thingy in doubt, at least based on what we have now.
-
@bontchev I'll pass, thanks. But this certainly puts the superintelligence thingy in doubt, at least based on what we have now.
@AAKL LOL, LLMs are anything but "super". They aren't even intelligent. In fact, I suspect that even if we manage to construct real (self-aware, reasoning) AI one day, it won't be an LLM.
Still, they are a useful tool; more useful than googling. Whether their usefulness is worth the cost is an entirely different matter.
