points by epihelix 4 days ago | 0 comments
To be fair, that's a pebkac problem. You got exactly what you requested (and the language was unambiguous).
This is like writing `if (cond_x && cond_y) {}` and then blaming the compiler because it didn't realise that actually meant to write `if (cond_x || cond_y) {}`.
[–] echion 4 days ago
The language is not unambiguous; it's exactly ambiguous (you and your first reply demonstrate how hard it can be to see the other reading):
0. "find issues that are both critical and related to X"
...could be read as "issues that are X and are Y":
1. [valid, intended] find [all] issues that are[, at the same time,] 1) critical; and 2) related to X
...or as "issues, both of which issues are X and are Y":
2. [valid, your reading] find [an to-be-specified number of] issues that are, both [so I want two issues], possessing X and Y attributes.
[–] Feathercrown 4 days ago
[–] epihelix 4 days ago
But I don't think their prompt as written would have limited the responses to two, unless there really were only two matching both conditionals. I've not seen an LLM misinterpret language that way before.
[–] retsibsi 4 days ago