All it takes is to provide a slightly better prompt (“write the answer in a natural prose style, no bullet points, no boring style, perhaps introduce a small error). It’s not that difficult.
I'd rather read the prompt
181–190 of 880 posts
Re: I'd rather read the prompt
#182I like the author's take: it isn't a value judgement on the individual using ChatGPT (or Gemini or whichever LLM you like this week), it's that the thought that went into making the prompt is, inevitably, more interesting/original/human than the output the LLM generates afterwards. In my experiments with LLMs for writing code, I find that the code is objectively garbage if my prompt is garbage. If I don't know what I…
For creative and professional writing, I found them useful for grammar and syntax review, or finding words from a fuzzy description.
For the structure, they are barely useful: Writing is about having such a clear understanding, that the meaning remains when reduced to words, so that others may grasp it. The LLM won't help much with that, as you say yourself.
Re: I'd rather read the prompt
#183That's because the instructor is asking questions that merely require the student to regurgitate the instructor's text. To actually teach this, you do something like this: "Here's a little dummy robot arm made out of Tinkertoys. There are three angular joints, a rotating base, a shoulder, and an elbow. Each one has a protractor so you can see the angle. 1. Figure out where the end of the arm will be based on those th…
A LLM can't do that? I'm a little surprised. (I know jack all about robotics but that sounds like a pretty common assignment, the kind an LLM would regurgitate someone else's homework.)
The LLM is very happy to give you an answer with high confidence.
The answer might be bogus, but the AI will sound confident all the way through.
No wonder sales and upper management love AI
Re: I'd rather read the prompt
#184As someone who is an immigrant that had to go to high school in English speaking country and who struggled a lot and couldn’t do anything about improving essay writing no matter what I did, I say all these English teachers deserve this. I wish ChatGPT existed during my school years, I would’ve at least had someone(thing) explain me how to write better.
> I would’ve at least had someone(thing) explain me how to write better.
I actually don't think that it is good at that. I have heard of language teachers trying to use it to teach the language (it's a model language, it should be good at it, right?) and realised that it isn't good at that.
Of course I understand the point of your message, which is that you feel your teachers were not helpful and I have empathy for that.
Re: I'd rather read the prompt
#185I'm far from the first to make this observation but LLMs are like anti-compression algorithms when used like that, a simple idea gets expanded into a bloated mess by an LLM, then sent to someone else who runs it through another LLM to summarize it back to something approximating the original prompt. Nobody benefits aside from Sam Altman and co, who get to pocket a cool $0.000000001 for enabling this pointless exercis…
Depends on what you are looking for. I’ve turned half baked ideas into white papers for plenty of praise. I’ve used them to make my Jira tickets seem complicated and complete. I’ve used them to get praised for writing comprehensive documentation. Part of my performance review is indirectly using bloat to seem sophisticated and thorough.
I’d rather be homeless in Philadelphia than work where you work
Re: I'd rather read the prompt
#186There are many ways to use LLMs. The issue, IMO, is that some people throw in a one-shot, short prompt, and get a generic, boring output. "Garbage in, generic out." Here's how I actually use LLMs: - To dump my thoughts and get help organizing them. - To get feedback on phrasing and transitions (I'm not a native speaker). - To improve tone, style (while trying to keep it personal!), or just to simplify messy sentences…
[flagged]
Re: I'd rather read the prompt
#187I'm far from the first to make this observation but LLMs are like anti-compression algorithms when used like that, a simple idea gets expanded into a bloated mess by an LLM, then sent to someone else who runs it through another LLM to summarize it back to something approximating the original prompt. Nobody benefits aside from Sam Altman and co, who get to pocket a cool $0.000000001 for enabling this pointless exercis…
> LLMs are like anti-compression algorithms when used like that, a simple idea gets expanded into a bloated mess by an LLM, I think that's the answer: LLMs are primarily useful for data and text translation and reduction, not for expansion. An exception is repetitive or boilerplate text or code where a verbose format is required to express a small amount of information.
There is one other very useful form of "expansion" that LLMs do.
If you aren't aware: (high-parameter-count) LLMs can be used pretty reliably to teach yourself things.
LLM base models "know things" to about the same degree that the Internet itself "knows" those things. For well-understood topics — i.e. subjects where the Internet contains all sorts of open-source textbooks and treatments of the subject — LLMs really do "know their shit": they won't hallucinate, they will correct you when you're misunderstanding the subject, they will calibrate to your own degree of expertise on the subject, they will make valid analogies between domains, etc.
Because of this, you can use an LLM as an infinitely-patient tutor, to learn-through-conversation any (again, well-understood) topic you want — and especially, to shore up any holes in your understanding.
(I wouldn't recommend relying solely on the LLM — but I've found "ChatGPT in one tab, Wikipedia open in another, switching back and forth" to be a very useful learning mode.)
See this much-longer rambling https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43797121 for details on why exactly this can be better (sometimes) than just reading one of those open-source textbooks.
Re: I'd rather read the prompt
#188the solution is obvious. stop grading the result, and start grading the process. if you can one-shot an answer to some problem, the problem is not interesting. the result is necessary, but not sufficient. how did you get there? how did you iterate? what were the twists and turns? what was the pacing? what was the vibe? no matter if with encyclopedia, google, or ai, the medium is the message. the medium is you interac…
> reviewers are scrubbing through video in an editor. evaluating the journey, not the destination. Let's be real... Multi-modal LLMs are scrubbing through the journey :P
just as there are low value students, there are low value reviewers. same as it ever was.
not every review is important.
Re: I'd rather read the prompt
#189I wish the author had state out right that they were not using LLMs much, since their opinion on them and their output has no value (its a new technology, and different enough that you do have to spend some time with them in order to be able to find out what value they have for your particluar work[0]. The is especially the case when you are about to complain about style, since that can easily be adjusted, by simply…
If an LLM is better at writing than you are, you should work on improving your writing. This is especially true for students.
Quite likely, further progress will lead to LLMs writing "better" than at least 99% of humans.
I think this will be no more of a contest than playing chess has been: humans don't stand a chance, but it also doesn't matter because being better or worse than the AI is besides the point.
Re: I'd rather read the prompt
#190[deleted]