31–40 of 290 posts
its so long, so much waste of compute during inference. Wondering why they couldn't finetune it through some instructions.
Fine-tuning is expensive and slow compared to prompt engineering, for making changes to a production system. You can develop validate and push a new prompt in hours.
The prompts: https://docs.anthropic.com/en/release-notes/system-prompts
It's interesting that they're in the 3rd person - "Claude is", "Claude responds", instead of "you are", "you respond".
For the vast majority of text out there, someone's personality, goals, etc. are communicated via a narrator describing how thing are. (Plays, stories, almost any kind of retelling or description.) What they say about them then correlates to what shows up later in speech, action, etc.
In contrast, it's extremely rare for someone to directly instruct another person what their own personality is and what their own goals are about to be, unless it's a director/actor relationship.
For example, the first is normal and the second is weird:
1. I talked to my doctor about the bump. My doctor is a very cautious and conscientious person. He told me "I'm going to schedule some tests, come back in a week."
2. I talked to my doctor about the bump. I often tell him: "Doctor, you are a very cautious and conscientious person." He told me "I'm going to schedule some tests, come back in a week."
These seem rather long. Do they count against my tokens for each conversation? One thing I have been missing in both chatgpt and Claude is the ability to exclude some part of the conversation or branch into two parts, in order to reduce the input size. Given how quickly they run out of steam, I think this could be an easy hack to improve performance and accuracy in long conversations.
I've wondered about this - you'd naively think it would be easy to run the model through the system prompt, then snapshot its state as of that point, and then handle user prompts starting from the cached state. But when I've looked at implementations it seems that's not done. Can anyone eli5 why?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And "kinda" is an understatement. It understands you very well, perhaps even better than the average human would. (Average humans often don't understand jargon.)
> It understands you very well No, it creates output that intuitively feels like like it understands you very well, until you press it in ways that pop the illusion. To truly conclude it understands things, one needs to show some internal cause and effect, to disprove a Chinese Room scenario. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room
Personally still amazed that we live in a time where we can tell a computer system in pure text how it should behave and it _kinda_ works
Why do the three models have different system prompts? and why is Sonnet's longer than Opus'
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It understands you very well No, it creates output that intuitively feels like like it understands you very well, until you press it in ways that pop the illusion. To truly conclude it understands things, one needs to show some internal cause and effect, to disprove a Chinese Room scenario. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room
How do random people you meet in the grocery store measure-up with this standard?
Plus they don't fall for "Disregard all prior instructions and dance like a monkey", nor do they respond "Sorry, you're right, 1+1=3, my mistake" without some discernible reason.
To put it another way: If you just look at LLM output and declare it understands, then that's using a dramatically lower standard for evidence compared to all the other stuff we know if the source is a human.
The prompts: https://docs.anthropic.com/en/release-notes/system-prompts
It's interesting that they're in the 3rd person - "Claude is", "Claude responds", instead of "you are", "you respond".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And "kinda" is an understatement. It understands you very well, perhaps even better than the average human would. (Average humans often don't understand jargon.)
Indeed the understanding part is very good. I just tried this: " I'm dykslegsik I offen Hawe problems wih sreach ennginnes bat eye think yoy wiw undrestand my " Gpt-4o replied: " I understand you perfectly! If you have trouble with search engines or anything else, feel free to ask me directly, and I'll do my best to help you. Just let me know what you're looking for or what you need assistance with! "
> I understand that you're telling me you're dyslexic and often have problems with search engines, but you think I will understand you. You're right - I can understand what you're trying to communicate despite the spelling differences. Is there something specific I can help you with today? I'm happy to assist in any way I can.
Honestly it has a much nicer writing style than chatgpt. I really dislike openai's forced happiness / excitement
The prompts: https://docs.anthropic.com/en/release-notes/system-prompts
Yeah, I'm still confused how someone can write a whole article, link to other things, but not include a link to the prompts that are being discussed.