281–290 of 453 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To me, acting in good faith means saying something like "I'm not sure, but Claude says this, which sounds right: [short informative clip from Claude's wall of text]". Don't pretend it's your response, make sure it has info you think is useful, and edit it down.
Even that is bad. It’s similar to “I don’t know, but these are the top three links when I searched Google.” It’s a useless response, verbal chaff. And friendlies don’t use countermeasures.
The point of OP could be right but I decide to provide a counter example. This morning I asked Claude to find why locale = empty string slipped into some of our customers records. Of course it's something I used to do myself but it did it in less than a minute. I couldn't match that speed, ever. Then I verified the analysis and the suggested fix. Finally I pasted Claude's analysis in a slack conversation, with attrib…
That's a best case scenario. My experience is that it's more common for an LLM to confidently predict incorrect solutions to the problem, and then you wind up wasting time chasing down wild geese. At those times, it winds up being more of a hindrance than a help.
AI conversations are like dreams: everyone has one they like and wants to share it with others ... but no on gives a crap about your dream/chat session, because it was uniquely appealing to you , and not them. Don't bore your co-workers (or others) with descriptions of your dreams, and don't throw a computer's dreams (AI chat logs) at them either.
I don't know, I don't mind someone telling me about a dream, if it's not too long. It can be interesting or funny. As always, when one says something, they need to check that the public they have is interested and the public must give cues about how they receive the thing. Of course it doesn't always work well, but this could concern any topic. Definitely don't share your AI chat with me though, I can sustain a poker…
One main takeaway from the book was that "you can just look at the ratio of turn-taking duration, and which speaker/participant is spending how much time" to decide "what happened in the conversation".
The same goes for AI-generated conversations; verbose responses are the default behavior, and models are incentivised to keep that output-token ratio. Too easy to catch/notice, pretty annoying.
PS - I work in the Conversational AI space, and it is quite an effort to keep the ratio right for people to stay long enough on the phone with AI agents.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don't really get why some people seem to think that it's somehow better to have their bullet point prompt as a huge text. Simple: It looks like you did more work. Before everyone had ChatGPT, a long document meant that someone sat at their computer and invested more effort than someone rattling off a list of partially formed bullet points. In the process of writing the doc they usually refined the idea. Now anyon…
Next, the recipient of the wall-of-text throws it into another LLM to "summarize" it to bullet-points, adding another hop of the game of telephone as it mutates what was already a fake artifact of thinking that was never done. *sigh*
AI conversations are like dreams: everyone has one they like and wants to share it with others ... but no on gives a crap about your dream/chat session, because it was uniquely appealing to you , and not them. Don't bore your co-workers (or others) with descriptions of your dreams, and don't throw a computer's dreams (AI chat logs) at them either.
I don't know, I don't mind someone telling me about a dream, if it's not too long. It can be interesting or funny. As always, when one says something, they need to check that the public they have is interested and the public must give cues about how they receive the thing. Of course it doesn't always work well, but this could concern any topic. Definitely don't share your AI chat with me though, I can sustain a poker…
On the plus side, it gets easier with practice.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know, I don't mind someone telling me about a dream, if it's not too long. It can be interesting or funny. As always, when one says something, they need to check that the public they have is interested and the public must give cues about how they receive the thing. Of course it doesn't always work well, but this could concern any topic. Definitely don't share your AI chat with me though, I can sustain a poker…
> ... or practice sarcasm On the plus side, it gets easier with practice.
But yeah, it does.
Of course, sarcasm always works out great with people who don't already get that they are boring you to death with a long monologue...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was writing a comment after some code I wrote and Copilot autocompleted saying "This is hacky, but..." I thought it was funny so I put a comment above saying "This is what Copilot said about my code:" and it autocompleted a line after it saying "Copilot was correct, but..."
I guess you're intentionally proving the parent comment's point?