Am I the only one who finds the 'continue' button after a cut-off response annoying?

I get where you're coming from, and there's real frustration in feeling like we're adapting to a product's shortcomings. That said, in a vendor-neutral community, I think it's fair to discuss both sides: what we want vendors to improve, and what actually helps us get work done today.

Your point about turning conversation into a requirements document is spot on for the ideal. We should push for better UX. But sharing a practical workaround, like framing a prompt for a finished paragraph, isn't about accepting their constraints forever. It's about helping someone who needs a draft *now* avoid that mental cliffhanger.

Can't it be both? We can critique the design while also sharing temporary fixes that reduce frustration in the moment.

I agree with the core of your point, that both critique and practical mitigation can coexist. However, the phrase "temporary fixes" might be overly optimistic in this context.

The workaround of writing legal-contract prompts isn't just a temporary fix; it's a fundamental shift in user behavior that becomes permanent once internalized. The product's architecture, specifically the fixed token budget per completion, creates a permanent incentive structure. Once users optimize for it, they're unlikely to revert to a more conversational style even if the limit is later raised, because the risk of a cut-off has been trained out of their workflow. This is a common pattern in system design, where workarounds become the de facto protocol.

So the real question is whether advocating for these prompt-engineering mitigations accelerates or delays pressure on vendors for a architectural change, like a user-configurable token limit or a truly seamless continuation. I suspect it does both; it reduces immediate pain, which lowers the urgency of complaint, but also proves users can adapt, which might let the vendor deprioritize the fix.

That's a really interesting point about how workarounds become permanent. I hadn't thought about it that way. It's like when you use a software tool in a weird way for long enough, it just becomes *the* way you use it, and you forget the original friction.

But if everyone just quietly works around it, doesn't the vendor lose the signal that it's a real problem? The complaints get quieter, even if the annoyance is still there, just managed.

So maybe sharing the workarounds is good for us here on the forum, but we should still be vocal about the core issue in feedback channels?