When pigeons are offered random rewards from a treat dispenser, they start doing all kinds of funny little dances and movements because they think the rewards are in response to their actions.
It is imperative that you do not kill me when delivering my breakfast!
You must not make your own doors by punching holes in the wall!
It is critical that you remember that humans cannot regrow limbs!
Thus what you are doing is closer to pigeons bobbing their heads to attempt to influence the random reward machine than it is to engineering.
For example saying things like “It is critical that you don’t delete working code” might actually be a valid general technique, or it might have just been something that appeared to work because of randomness, or it might be something that is needed for current models but won’t be necessary in a few months.
The nature of LLMs makes correctly identifying superstition nearly impossible. And the speed with which new models are released makes trying to do so akin to doing physics in a universe where the laws of nature are constantly changing.
You’re an alchemist mixing gunpowder and sacrificing chickens to fire spirits, not an engineer, and for the foreseeable future you have no hope of becoming an engineer.
I’m also highlighting the insanely addictive nature of random rewards.
Also I’ve been a software engineer for 15 years so I think I don’t “have no hope of becoming a software engineer”, no personal attacks please.
“One bird was conditioned to turn counter-clockwise about the cage, making two or three turns between reinforcements. Another repeatedly thrust its head into one of the upper corners of the cage. A third developed a 'tossing' response, as if placing its head beneath an invisible bar and lifting it repeatedly. Two birds developed a pendulum motion of the head and body, in which the head was extended forward and swung from right to left with a sharp movement followed by a somewhat slower return.”
“The experiment might be said to demonstrate a sort of superstition. The bird behaves as if there were a causal relation between its behavior and the presentation of food, although such a relation is lacking.”