undefined | Better HN

0 pointsjacobgkau11mo ago0 comments

I use words that convey very clearly what I mean, such as "don't invent a function that doesn't exist in your next response" when asking what function a value is coming from. It says it understands, then proceeds to do what I specifically asked it not to do anyway.

The fact that you're responding to someone who found AI non-useful with "you must be using words that are the opposite of what you really mean" makes your rebuttal come off as a little biased. Do you really think the chances of "they're playing opposite day" are higher than the chances of the tool not working well?

0 comments

BoorishBears11mo ago

But that's exactly what I mean by brush up on the tool: "don't invent a function that doesn't exist in your next response" doesn't mean anything to an LLM.

It implies you're continuing with a context window where it already hallucinated function calls, yet your fix is to give it an instruction that relies on a kind of introspection it can't really demonstrate.

My fix in that situation would be to start a fresh context and provide as much relevant documentation as feasible. If that's not enough, then the LLM probably won't succeed for the API in question no matter how many iterations you try and it's best to move on.

> ... makes your rebuttal come off as a little biased.

Biased how? I don't personally benefit from them using AI. They used wording that was contrary to what they meant in the comment I'm responding to, that's why I brought up the possibility.

jacobgkauOP11mo ago

> Biased how?

Biased as in I'm pretty sure he didn't write an AI prompt that was the "opposite" of what he wanted.

And generalizing something that "might" happen as something that "will" happen is not actually an "opposite," so calling it that (and then basing your assumption of that person's prompt-writing on that characterization) was a stretch.

BoorishBears11mo ago

This honestly feels like a diversion from the actual point which you proved: for some class of issues with LLMs, the underlying problem is learning how to use the tool effectively.

If you really need me to educate you on the meaning of opposite...

"contrary to one another or to a thing specified"

"diametrically different (as in nature or character)"

Are two relevant definitions here.

Saying something will 100% happen, and saying something will sometimes happen are diametrically opposed statements and contrary to each other. A concept can (and often will) have multiple opposites.

But again, I'm not even holding them to that literal of a meaning.

If you told me even half the time you use an LLM the result is that it solves a completely different but simpler version of what you asked, my advice would still be to brush up on how to work with LLMs before diving in.

I'm really not sure why that's such a point of contention.

1 more reply

lechatonnoir11mo ago

Well said about the fact that they can't introspect, and I agree with your tip about starting with fresh context, and about when to give up.

I feel like this thread is full of strawmen from people who want to come up with reasons they shouldn't try to use this tool for what it's good at, and figure out ways to deal with the failure cases.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

BoorishBears11mo ago

But that's exactly what I mean by brush up on the tool: "don't invent a function that doesn't exist in your next response" doesn't mean anything to an LLM.

> ... makes your rebuttal come off as a little biased.

Biased how? I don't personally benefit from them using AI. They used wording that was contrary to what they meant in the comment I'm responding to, that's why I brought up the possibility.

jacobgkauOP11mo ago

> Biased how?

Biased as in I'm pretty sure he didn't write an AI prompt that was the "opposite" of what he wanted.

BoorishBears11mo ago

This honestly feels like a diversion from the actual point which you proved: for some class of issues with LLMs, the underlying problem is learning how to use the tool effectively.

If you really need me to educate you on the meaning of opposite...

"contrary to one another or to a thing specified"

"diametrically different (as in nature or character)"

Are two relevant definitions here.

Saying something will 100% happen, and saying something will sometimes happen are diametrically opposed statements and contrary to each other. A concept can (and often will) have multiple opposites.

But again, I'm not even holding them to that literal of a meaning.

I'm really not sure why that's such a point of contention.

1 more reply

lechatonnoir11mo ago

Well said about the fact that they can't introspect, and I agree with your tip about starting with fresh context, and about when to give up.

I feel like this thread is full of strawmen from people who want to come up with reasons they shouldn't try to use this tool for what it's good at, and figure out ways to deal with the failure cases.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse