As someone who uses LLMs on my hobby projects to write code, I’ve found the opposite. I usually fix the code, then send it in saying it is a refactor to clarify things. It seems to work well enough. If it is rather complex, I will paste the broken code into another conversation and ask it to refactor/explain what is going on.
Fixing the mistake yourself and then sending the code back is a positive example, since you're demonstrating the correct way rather than asking for a fix.
But in my experience, if you continue iterating from that point, there's still a risk that parts of the original broken code can leak back into the output again later on since the broken code is still in context.
Ymmv of course and it definitely depends a lot on the complexity of what you're doing.
I’m attempting to keep the context ball rolling by reiterating key points of a request throughout the conversation.
The challenge is writing in a tone that will gently move the conversation rather than refocus it. I can’t just inject “remember point n+1” and hope that’s not all it’ll talk about in the next frame.
If nothing else, LLMs have helped me understand exactly why GIGO is a fundamental law.
