When not using reasoning, repeating the input prompt improves performance for popular models (Gemini, GPT, Claude, and Deepseek) without increasing the number of generated tokens or latency.
Linked by 7 identifiable commenters in 7 comments across 7 threads, from Feb 2026 to Sep 2026. Found in 13 HN submissions from Dec 2025 to Mar 2026. Open submission discussions.
Howdy folks. I was inspired by the really neat "Jev in 25 lines of Python" post a few days ago (and System One models in general), and after playing with the idea I tried whipping up something a little more complex, and Lichen is what popped out…
Really interesting paper, thanks for the share. The point their making in that paper reminds me of this paper some people shared around work earlier this year, https://arxiv.org/pdf/2512.14982 (Prompt Repetition Improves Non-Reasoning LLMs)... I wonder how OPs question would…
Actually not surprised. I guess this is for the same reason “say it twice” [1] is working. Because LLm are trained as causal language model, past token cannot attend to future token. One copy of the layer set solve this. [1]https://arxiv.org/html/2512.14982v1
Interestingly, when I apply the "simply repeat the prompt" technique [1], Sonnet 4.6 on the website got it right every time, both with and without extended thinking. Not repeating the prompt got a mix of walk and drive answers. I love how prompt engineering is basically…
Howdy folks. I was inspired by the really neat "Jev in 25 lines of Python" post a few days ago (and System One models in general), and after playing with the idea I tried whipping up something a little more complex, and Lichen is what popped out…
jeff_ciesielskiView on HNParent context