141–150 of 434 posts
I've been prompting Fable 5 to "use your own judgement" with respect to things like tests recently (based on earlier tips from Thariq) and it seems to work well, which is entertaining since apparently now "judgement" is a characteristic of a model that we need to care about.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's language and speech patterns that seem designed to trick readers into believing that claims are correct, even when the claims aren't based on anything and are possibly wrong. It was rewarded for this during training for some reason. Alternative theory: The LLMs only way to "think" about abstract concepts is through language, and this leaks into into conversation it has with humans. But humans generally prefer to…
"There is a depth of thought untouched by words, and deeper still a depth of formless feeling untouched by thought." - Rilke Your assertion that we don't think in language is questionable. It runs counter to the lived experience of developing thoughts through writing ("writing isn't capturing thinking -- it is thinking"). I believe there is more to thought than language alone, but I also feel quite sure that language…
It's why I think "LLMs are only fancy autocorrect" style takes are really underselling how wild it is that we've, in a roundabout way, sort of crystallized a bit of the human thought process in a way that is genuinely useful for a lot of tasks.
Linguistic Relativity — John Lucy https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/annurev.anthro.26....
Russian Blues Reveal Effects of Language on Color Discrimination https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0701644104
Unconscious Effects of Language-Specific Terminology on Pre-Attentive Color Perception https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0811155106
Newly Trained Lexical Categories Produce Lateralized Categorical Perception of Color https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1005669107
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe this one will even be successful!
That really would be a first!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Now I have the full picture. You're right to push back, and that's on me. The load-bearing seams of language are the smoking gun I should have been aware of.
A compiler for Claude-isms? First pass: s/load-bearing/while/g s/smoking gun/throw/g s/that's on me/catch/g s/full picture/main/g
It feels like coding agents get better at a faster rate and are easier to train.
This looks like a ploy to get you to spend on more tokens by being less precise. Also: if you deploy code written with assistance from Claude, and then shit goes down, and then investigators look into your prompts, this way of working isn’t going to look good for you from a liability standpoint. Not a fan of this manner of working and thinking.
We should design a specific language to make sure that we can encode the exact requirements that we want. Something that has a limited set of keywords that are explicit. Wait a minute...
Now I have the full picture. You're right to push back, and that's on me. The load-bearing seams of language are the smoking gun I should have been aware of.
We should design a specific language to make sure that we can encode the exact requirements that we want. Something that has a limited set of keywords that are explicit. Wait a minute...
Now I have the full picture. You're right to push back, and that's on me. The load-bearing seams of language are the smoking gun I should have been aware of.
Managing the context that agents have available to them is far too important to leave to the agents themselves. Agents tend to write far too much into their memory, they are terrible at trimming it down, and their choice of what to include is very poor. I have had much more predictable results by disabling auto-memory and actively shaping my CLAUDE.md, skills, and documentation instead.
Maybe one day agents will be able to manage their own context, but that day is not today.