131–140 of 194 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've already given enough. I'm not gonna argue if you doubt it, I've been training argument dodging :)
No, I mean the actual prompt and its output. "I said this and it did that" is just a recall of your own memory, not an example. I don't want to argue with you, I'm interested in real stuff.
On the other hand, that's what a machine would say!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> These machines do not think and they do not have a mind Well, they do think, in that they produce output that is indistinguisable from thinking. If a person produced the same output to the same questions, we'd considered them thinking, maybe dumb sometimes, or paranoid at others, but still a thinking person. We can argue about the quality and depth of the thinking that LLMs do (and we can say it's much cruder than…
That’s the problem - it seems like a mind but it doesn’t operate like the ones we’re used to. Even a dog will learn from recent stimuli, these things don’t. The prompt just modifies.
The problem here is not doing tasks and outputting garbage output.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, I mean the actual prompt and its output. "I said this and it did that" is just a recall of your own memory, not an example. I don't want to argue with you, I'm interested in real stuff.
I swear I'm real :) On the other hand, that's what a machine would say!
Andrea Vallone. The 4.7 and 4.8 releases are the first under her influence: https://www.evernever.org/blog/the-woman-who-killed-claude
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're misunderstanding what these models do. It is a limitation of LLMs. They don't have memory, they do not learn, they cannot learn. The sooner you let go of your desire to have them learn or remember anything, the sooner you will achieve enlightenment (or, just a peaceful life where there is no possibility of getting into an argument with a machine). If you want it to synthesize information that is not in its tra…
This is also a change in specifically Opus 4.8 / perhaps Fable 5 (I didn't really get enough of a baseline to see it there as much), where it's much more skeptical. For my purposes, this is fabulous - one of my pat addendums to most prompts is "challenge my assumptions and check the evidence empirically", and boy does it.
I think you mean fableuous ;)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> but it's not arguing because there's no record of it in the chat? Yes? Arguing implies I have to convince someone to believe something. I don't think anyone would consider it winning an argument if you do so by causing amnesia. My job is to get work done, not argue with an LLM, if it refuses twice, it is time for a /clear. 100% of the time, the issue is resolved after a /clear.
+1. It's the most effective way. It often start going into circles when you have the chat open for medium-long, and starts getting even easily-verifiable tasks wrong, cutting corners, hallucinating APIs, things like that. Cleaning the prompt and starting from scratch often does the trick. Of course someone will arrive and say the problem is my CLAUDE.md or whatever it is.
I was having a back and forth with Claude over a somewhat controversial topic, and I found it difficult for it to not misinterpret my questions. It was like speaking to a motivated reasoner who misinterpreted the 3 important words because the 10 others gave it cognitive disconence. Eventually I cracked it and it said this: “ I treated the subject as denial-adjacent and reflexively re-asserted the obvious, which means…
Is his why online forums like Reddit are dying? Because people are moving their time-wasting arguing with the void to arguing with an ai? This is really bizarre to me.
It also sounded close to an AI psychosis, so maybe chill out a bit?