Hacker News Reader

Comment by Tcepsa | Hacker News Reader

Maybe it's spite-driven development, but I'd love to hear about someone who, upon learning that LLMs are suggesting endpoints in their API that don't exist, implements them specifically to respond with a status code[0] of "421: Misdirected Request". Or, for something less snarky and more in keeping with the actual intent of the code, "501: Not Implemented". If the potentially-implied "but it might be, later" of 501 is untenable, I humbly propose this new code: "513: Your Coding Assistant Is Wrong"

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_HTTP_status_codes

View on HN

> "513: Your Coding Assistant Is Wrong"

You made me chuckle. Well played. Great stuff :)

May I, simply, also suggest:

HTTP 407 Hallucination

Meaning: The server understands the request but believes it to be incongruous with reality.-

Yes, it should definitely be in the 400 space of HTML error codes. As 400 -> "You are incorrect" while 500 -> "We messed up".

Reminds me of signs like this: https://www.reddit.com/r/ScarySigns/comments/dhzov1/your_gps...

+1 for 513: Your Coding Assistant Is Wrong"

If we have 418, why not 513?

I humbly request, if you are going to do this, please, please...use the 418 response. It deserves wider adoption :-)

(on that note, I'm putting the kettle on :)

I think it's a good representation of a hallucination.

Bit of a pet peeve: 418 is clearly defined as "I am a teapot", not "whatever I want it to mean".

Please do not use it for anything other than its specified purpose, even if it is a joke.

Core identity panic response?

* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLQStcdhAGA

* https://www.goodiesruleok.com/articles.php?id=27

Is one being a little precious about one being a teapot!?

Are you a teapot? If you were, maybe you'd be precious about people falsely claiming to be one too!

It's really more about how when I say "I am a teapot", I want people to think "Oh, he's a teapot!" and not "He might be a teapot, or he might be chiding me for misusing llms or he might be signaling that the monkey is out of bananas or [...]"

I agree, though that means I really should stop returning my 404 - Server Unavailable response, but you'll never have my 500 - OK.

What would be an appropriate response code for "He might be a teapot, or he might be chiding me for misusing llms or he might be signaling that the monkey is out of bananas or [...]"?

Each of those should have a clear, unique response code. There should be no "maybe it's this, maybe it's that". A real-world example is login forms that tell you something like "Invalid e-mail or password".

Are you joking around with me or is my point just not as obvious as I believed it to be?

Edit: Not sure if that last bit sounds confrontational, please know that it's a genuine question.

So we've gone down a bit of a path here, and thats cool :-)

Thank you for taking the time to respond and ask. My original 418 message was very much intended as a light hearted joke, in the spirit of "if we wanted to return cheeky responses to previously nonsense APIs that AI invented" I actually like this idea of subverting AI in inventive ways.

Now to the point where we've got here, yes I 100% agree in real-world, production applications, you should return response codes which accurately represent the actual response. But there also a place for fun, even in production, and 418 represents that for me.

Thanks for caring about quality :-)

If an LLM can hallucinate an endpoint, then the server is allowed to hallucinate being a teapot :)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com