Hacker News Reader

Comment by esafak | Hacker News Reader

There is a rationale:

> Second, and no less important, AI Studio is genuinely the best chat interface on the market. It was the first platform where you could edit any message in the conversation, not just the last one, and I think it's still the only platform where you can edit AI responses as well! So if the model goes on an unnecessary tangent, you can just remove it from the context. It's still the only platform where if you have a long conversation like R(equest)1, O(utput)1, R2, O2, R3, O3, R4, O4, R5, O5, you can click regenerate on R3 and it will only regenerate O3, keeping R4 and all subsequent messages intact.

View on HN

Isn't discussion editing a standard feature in chat interfaces? I've been using koboldcpp since i first tried LLMs (mainly because it is written in C++ and largely self-contained) and you can edit the entire discussion as a single text buffer, but even the example HTTP server for llama.cpp allows editing the discussion.

And yeah it can be useful for coding since you can edit the LLM's response to fix mistakes (and add minor features/tweaks to the code) and pretend it was correct from the get go instead of trying to roleplay with someone who makes mistakes you then have to correct :-P

> you can click regenerate on R3 and it will only regenerate O3, keeping R4 and all subsequent messages intact.

What's a use case for this? I'm trying to imagine why you'd want that, but I can't see it. Is it for the horny people? If you're trying to do anything useful, having messages edited should re-generate the following conversation as well (tool calls, etc).

Imagine in R2 you ask it to write a pong game in C using SDL, in R3 you ask it to write a CMakefile, in R4 you ask it to make the paddles red and green but then around R6 you want to modify the structure and you realize what a catastrophic mistake on your sanity cmake was, so you ask it to use premake for R3 instead so that R6 will only show how to update the premake file for that, wiping clean the existence of cmake (from the discussion and your project).

in R3 you ask to implement feature 1, then you move on to building stuff on top, you request feature 2 in R4 and after looking at O4 you see that there was an unintended consequence of a particular design choice in O3, so you can go back, update prompt R3, regenerate O3, and have your detailed prompt R4 remain in place.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com