These arguments are ridiculous. It's impossible to write working code using pattern matching. You can try for a million years to write a program that writes non trivial software using pattern matching, you will never succeed. Claude understands the code it produces: there is no other way to write correct software.
Nope, not ridiculous. Software engineers use pattern matching all the time. The process involves identifying and refactoring code snippets that solve problems similar to the ones you are working on. And by the way Claude understands nothing, except probabilities.
Vectors are what LLMs work with under the hood, just like machine language with computers. Everything has to be tokenized and represented as vectors for an LLM to be able to process it.
Thanks for posting. I didn't know about the "lost in the middle" problem!
You are welcome 🤗
These arguments are ridiculous. It's impossible to write working code using pattern matching. You can try for a million years to write a program that writes non trivial software using pattern matching, you will never succeed. Claude understands the code it produces: there is no other way to write correct software.
Nope, not ridiculous. Software engineers use pattern matching all the time. The process involves identifying and refactoring code snippets that solve problems similar to the ones you are working on. And by the way Claude understands nothing, except probabilities.
"Pattern matching is all you need".
Shows how much you know. Ignorance is ok, being rude is not.
I am not entirely sure that this is correct. Are you implying that Claude code vectorizes your actual code base?
Vectors are what LLMs work with under the hood, just like machine language with computers. Everything has to be tokenized and represented as vectors for an LLM to be able to process it.
That is correct but that’s not how Claude code navigates your codebase