LLMs reward expertise
seangoedecke.com
LLMs reward expertise
1–10 of 607 posts
Re: LLMs reward expertise
#2LLMs reward architecture knowledge of how to structure things and how to not just say "Claude, make me Microsoft Flight Simulator, make no mistakes".
Re: LLMs reward expertise
#3Agree with this. LLMs multiply the human user's ability. More ability, more impact!
Re: LLMs reward expertise
#4Not sure I agree with this. The math guy at anthropic's prompts are essentially:
"suppose you’ve gotta resolve the $CONJECTURE, like absolutely have to, everything depends on it. think really hard, and try to come up with a bunch of ideas to try. but remember to trust yourself and not necessarily in conventional wisdom!!"
https://claude.ai/share/25740bd5-aa97-4bd7-bf58-c4df3793fda7
https://xcancel.com/__alpoge__/status/2083855298239078748
What's funny is that every other person gets a different conclusion about who these models reward/empower. I've seen people say that the generalist stands to gain the most and others say that it's the experts. Like all of life, maybe the "winner" is the person who just does stuff.
Re: LLMs reward expertise
#5LLMs reward architecture knowledge of how to structure things and how to not just say "Claude, make me Microsoft Flight Simulator, make no mistakes".
Unfortunately the software industry is saying things like "don't look at the code", "LLMs have made developers 10-100x faster", etc. The only way they can make such claims is by saying what you said above: "Claude, make me Microsoft Flight Simulator, make no mistakes".
Additionally engineers are facing pressures via deadlines to work in the paradigm of "Claude, make me Microsoft Flight Simulator, make no mistakes"...
Re: LLMs reward expertise
#6Prompt an image or video generator without knowledge in photography or art skills and your results will look sloppy.
Re: LLMs reward expertise
#7Not sure I agree with this. The math guy at anthropic's prompts are essentially: "suppose you’ve gotta resolve the $CONJECTURE, like absolutely have to, everything depends on it. think really hard, and try to come up with a bunch of ideas to try. but remember to trust yourself and not necessarily in conventional wisdom!!" https://claude.ai/share/25740bd5-aa97-4bd7-bf58-c4df3793fda7 https://xcancel.com/__alpoge__/stat…
This works better for math because math is self-verifiable. Once you have a proof it needs no outside evidence.
Expertise is needed to evaluate model outputs where it can't verify itself, or at the very least one's expertise can help steer the model in the right direction.
However this is irrelevant if models themselves are better at evaluating/leveraging expertise/information.
Re: LLMs reward expertise
#8I am feeling this a lot lately. Getting the most out of agents seems to require being able to ask the right question. And how can you ask the right questions without deep domain expertise?
Re: LLMs reward expertise
#9You're basically playing the role of team lead to the LLM's junior dev.
Re: LLMs reward expertise
#10LLMs reward architecture knowledge of how to structure things and how to not just say "Claude, make me Microsoft Flight Simulator, make no mistakes".
Many, including myself, report having a lot of success with braindumping and not structuring anything. Just talking into speech recognition for 2-10 minutes as a stream of consciousness about what my context is, what I want, what I know already, what I have a vague hunch about, how it fits into a bigger picture, what aspects are most important to me, any footguns I already know about, really like having a chat with a person on the phone, with someone you have to guide remotely because they have to implement the thing right now but you have to be out of office and so your only interface is speech. Except you can be more structureless because the AI won't be offended. Just keep on rambling, and press enter, don't even correct mistranscriptions. It will understand it anyway.
Now, the key is, that while rambling without structure, you do have to drop the key facts into your speech, and you have to know what you're talking about in at least a good portion of it.
I think people are afraid of doing it, because it seems "not the right way" or "not scientific" or whatnot. They want to believe there is some magic to writing the right prompt. So let me tell you, it works.