A significant number of new signups at my tiny niche SaaS now come from ChatGPT, yet I have no idea what prompts people are using to get it to recommend my product. I can’t get it to recommend my product when trying some obvious prompts on my own, on other people’s accounts (though it does work on my account because it sees my chat history of course).
Adding a feature because ChatGPT incorrectly thinks it exists
181–190 of 451 posts
Re: Adding a feature because ChatGPT incorrectly thinks it exists
#182Earlier quoted context omitted.
Passive voice often adds length, impedes flow, and subtracts the useful info of who is doing something. Examples: * Active - concise, complete info: The manager approved the proposal. * Passive - wordy, awkward: The proposal was approved by the manager. * Passive - missing info: The proposal was approved. [by who?] Most experienced writers will use active unless they have a specific reason not to, e.g., to emphasize…
Many times this is exactly what we want: to emphasize the action instead of who is doing it. It turns out that technical writing is one of the main areas where we want this! So I have always hated this kind of blanket elimination of passive voice.
The subject can also be the feature itself. active/passive:
- The Manage User menu item changes a user's status from active to inactive.
- A user's status is changed from active to inactive using the Manage User menu item.
Re: Adding a feature because ChatGPT incorrectly thinks it exists
#183Earlier quoted context omitted.
Passive voice often adds length, impedes flow, and subtracts the useful info of who is doing something. Examples: * Active - concise, complete info: The manager approved the proposal. * Passive - wordy, awkward: The proposal was approved by the manager. * Passive - missing info: The proposal was approved. [by who?] Most experienced writers will use active unless they have a specific reason not to, e.g., to emphasize…
Many times this is exactly what we want: to emphasize the action instead of who is doing it. It turns out that technical writing is one of the main areas where we want this! So I have always hated this kind of blanket elimination of passive voice.
Then we agree.
Re: Adding a feature because ChatGPT incorrectly thinks it exists
#184I've found this to be one of the most useful ways to use (at least) GPT-4 for programming. Instead of telling it how an API works, I make it guess, maybe starting with some example code to which a feature needs to be added. Sometimes it comes up with a better approach than I had thought of. Then I change the API so that its code works. Conversely, I sometimes present it with some existing code and ask it what it does…
This is similar to an old HCI design technique called Wizard of Oz by the way, where a human operator pretends to be the app that doesn’t exist yet. It’s great for discovering new features.
Re: Adding a feature because ChatGPT incorrectly thinks it exists
#185Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Sometimes it comes up with a better approach than I had thought of. IMO this has always been the killer use case for AI—from Google Maps to Grammarly. I discovered Grammarly at the very last phase of writing my book. I accepted maybe 1/3 of its suggestions, which is pretty damn good considering my book had already been edited by me dozens of times AND professionally copy-edited. But if I'd have accepted all of Gram…
What's wrong with passive?
Here is a simple summary of the common voices/moods in technical writing:
- Active: The user presses the Enter key.
- Passive: The Enter key is to be pressed.
- Imperative (aka command): Press the Enter key.
The imperative mood is concise and doesn't dance around questions about who's doing what. The reader is expected to do it.
Re: Adding a feature because ChatGPT incorrectly thinks it exists
#186What this immediately makes me realize is how many people are currently trying ot figure out how to intentionally get AI chat bots to send people to their site, like ChatGPT was sending people to this guy's site. SEO for AI. There will be billions in it.
I know nothing about this. I imagine people are already working on it, wonder what they've figured out.
(Alternatively, in the future can I pay OpenAI to get ChatGPT to be more likely to recommend my product than my competitors?)
Re: Adding a feature because ChatGPT incorrectly thinks it exists
#187I wonder if we ever get to the point I remember reading about in a novel ( AI initially based on emails ), where human population is gently nudged towards individuals that in aggregate benefit AI goals.
Sounds like you are referring to book 1 in a series, the book called "Avogadro Corp: The Singularity Is Closer than It Appears" by William Hertling. I read 3-4 of those books, they were entertaining.
Re: Adding a feature because ChatGPT incorrectly thinks it exists
#188Along these lines, a useful tool might be a BDD framework like Cucumber that instead of relying on written scenarios has an LLM try to "use" your UX or API a significant number of times, with some randomization, in order to expose user behavior that you (or an LLM) wouldn't have thought of when writing unit tests.
Re: Adding a feature because ChatGPT incorrectly thinks it exists
#189I've found this to be one of the most useful ways to use (at least) GPT-4 for programming. Instead of telling it how an API works, I make it guess, maybe starting with some example code to which a feature needs to be added. Sometimes it comes up with a better approach than I had thought of. Then I change the API so that its code works. Conversely, I sometimes present it with some existing code and ask it what it does…
This is similar to an old HCI design technique called Wizard of Oz by the way, where a human operator pretends to be the app that doesn’t exist yet. It’s great for discovering new features. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wizard_of_Oz_experiment
I'd never heard that term! Thank you! I feel like LLMs ought to be fantastic at doing that, as well. This is sort of like the inverse.
Re: Adding a feature because ChatGPT incorrectly thinks it exists
#190Earlier quoted context omitted.
E-Prime is cool. OOPS! I mean E-Prime cools me. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-Prime E-Prime (short for English-Prime or English Prime, sometimes É or E′) denotes a restricted form of English in which authors avoid all forms of the verb to be. E-Prime excludes forms such as be, being, been, present tense forms (am, is, are), past tense forms (was, were) along with their negative contractions (isn't, aren't, wasn't,…
I've had entire conversations in E-Prime. I found it an interestingly brain-twisting exercise, but still managed to smuggle in all kinds of covert presumptions of equivalence and essential (or analytic) attributes, even though E-Prime's designers intended it to force you to question such things.
Would you mind identifying a few of the "smuggled presumptions"?