441–450 of 560 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is that GPT5? Reddit users are freaking out about losing 4o and AFAICT it's because 5 doesn't stroke their ego as hard as 4o. I feel there are roughly two classes of heavy LLM users - one who use it like a tool, and the other like a therapist. The latter may be a bigger money maker for many LLM companies so I worry GPT5 will be seen as a mistake to them, despite being better for research/agent work.
My very brief interaction with GPT5 is that it's just weird. "Sure, I'll help you stop flirting with OOMs" "Thought for 27s Yep-..." (this comes out a lot) "If you still graze OOM at load" "how far you can push --max-model-len without more OOM drama" - all this in a prolonged discussion about CUDA and various llm runners. I've added special user instructions to avoid flowery language, but it gets ignored. EDIT: it al…
Also take a peek at what's in Memories (which is separate from the above); consider cleaning it up or disabling entirely.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
ChatGPT opened with a "Nope" the other day. I'm so proud of it. https://chatgpt.com/share/6896258f-2cac-800c-b235-c433648bf4...
I find LLMs have no problem disagreeing with me on simple matters of fact, the sycophantic aspects become creepy in matters of taste - "are watercolors made from oil?" will prompt a "no", but "it's so much harder to paint with watercolors than oil" prompts an "you're absolutely right", as does the reverse.
I've spent a lot of time trying to get LLM to generate things in a specific way, the biggest take away I have is, if you tell it "don't do xyz" it will always have in the back of its mind "do xyz" and any chance it gets it will take to "do xyz" When working on art projects, my trick is to specifically give all feedback constructively, carefully avoiding framing things in terms of the inverse or parts to remove.
Example-based prompting is a good way to get specific behaviors. Write a system prompt that describes the behavior you want, write a round or two of assistant/user interaction, and then feed it all to the LLM. Now in its context it has already produced output of the type you want, so when you give it your real prompt, it will be very likely to continue producing the same sort of output.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Versus, if it just gave a curt and unfriendly answer, most people (esp. Americans) I don’t see this as an American thing. It’s an extension of the current Product Management trend to give software quirky and friendly personality. You can see the trend in more than LLM output. It’s in their desktop app that has “Good Morning” and other prominent greetings. Claude Code has quirky status output like “Bamboozling” and…
I worked in an org with offices in America, India, Europe, and Israel, and it was not uncommon for the American employees to be put off by the directness of the foreign employees. It was often interpreted as rudeness, to the surprise of the speaker. This happened to the Israel employees more than the India or Europe employees, at least in part because the India/Europe employees usually tried to adapt to the behavior…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you get a massage from massage machine is it also a mirage? If you use a vibrator is it also a mirage? Why it suddenly becomes an unhealthy mirage if you need words to tickle yourself?
A vibrator still works as intended if you believe it doesn't love you. GPT-4o stops working as intended if you believe it doesn't love you. The latter relies on an illusion, the former doesn't. (More precisely, a vibrator still relies on an illusion in the evolutionary sense: it doesn't create offspring, so over time phenotypes who like vibrators get replaced by those who don't.)
As for the evolutionary perspective, evolution is not that simple. Gay people typically have way less offspring than vibrator users and somehow they are still around and plentiful.
Brains are messy hodgepodge of various subsystems. Clever primates found multitude of way how to mess with them to make life more bearable. So far the species continuous regardless.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was a bit unfair then. That sounds like someone with good intent tried to put something together to help colleagues. And it's definitely not the only time I heard of negative prompting being a recommended approach.
> And it's definitely not the only time I heard of negative prompting being a recommended approach. I’m very willing to admit to being wrong, just curious if in those other cases it actually worked or not?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My very brief interaction with GPT5 is that it's just weird. "Sure, I'll help you stop flirting with OOMs" "Thought for 27s Yep-..." (this comes out a lot) "If you still graze OOM at load" "how far you can push --max-model-len without more OOM drama" - all this in a prolonged discussion about CUDA and various llm runners. I've added special user instructions to avoid flowery language, but it gets ignored. EDIT: it al…
Turn off the setting that lets it reference chat history; it's under Personalization. Also take a peek at what's in Memories (which is separate from the above); consider cleaning it up or disabling entirely.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Turn off the setting that lets it reference chat history; it's under Personalization. Also take a peek at what's in Memories (which is separate from the above); consider cleaning it up or disabling entirely.
Oh, I went through that. o3 had the same memories and was always to the point.
I'm pretty sure they want it kissing people's asses because it makes users feel good and therefore more likely to use the LLM more. Versus, if it just gave a curt and unfriendly answer, most people (esp. Americans) wouldn't like to use it as much. Just a hypothesis.
But it really erodes trust. First couple of times I felt that it indeed confirmed what I though, then I became suspicious and I experimented with presenting my (clearly worse) take on things, it still said I was absolutely right, and now I just don't trust it anymore. As people here are saying, you quickly learn to not ask leading questions, just assume that its first take is pretty optimal and perhaps present it wit…