10 ms·

I find it interesting that most of these tactics can be summarized into: "write clearly and provide ample information." I have a side business for ACT/SAT prep

I find it interesting that most of these tactics can be summarized into: "write clearly and provide ample information." I have a side business for ACT/SAT prep. I teach English, and often have to remind students about sentence structure and word flow. For example, I can't say "My mom, my grandma, and I went to her favorite store" -- in that example, there is no clear way to know who "her" is. Similarly, I see many people claim GPT-n is "dumb", yet when I see their prompt, I realize it was a bad prompt. There are clear logical inconsistencies, there is inadequate information, and there is confusing word usage. I've been astounded by GPT-4 and have nearly 5x-ed my productivity with it (for coding and for parsing documents). But I think my experience is a result of my habitual "standardized testing" writing style, while others' poor experience is a result of their more layman writing style.

BeFlatXIII 3y ago
What are some other clarifications to that sentence besides those in the forms "My mom and I went with my grandma to her favorite store" or "I went with my mom and grandma to my mom's favorite store"?
- airstrike 3y ago
  I don't love either one of these but.... My mom took my grandma and I to her favorite store My grandma and I went to my mom's favorite store with her
  - hammock 3y ago
    Neither of those sentences is clear
    - nomel 3y ago
      Agreed. Ditch the ambiguous “her”. “My mom, grandma, and I went to my grandma’s favorite store.”
    - mrtranscendence 3y ago
      How about this: “It was my grandma’s birthday and we wanted to make it special! My mom, my grandma, and I all went to her favorite store.” I’d argue that using “my grandma” instead of “her” would be unpleasantly repetitive there.
      - hammock 3y ago
        That approach is marginally better. It’s still arguably unclear. The store could be your mom’s favorite store to get special gifts from If you think using Grandma three times is too much, you could replace the first Grandma in the second sentence with “she.” For instance, “she, my mom, and I went…”
  - atlantic 3y ago
    My Mom went to her favourite store, and took Gran and me with her.
  - theonething 3y ago
    > My mom took my grandma and I to her favorite store Shouldn't that be me, not I?
- maxdoop 3y ago
  Yes, you'd need to specify the subject of the sentence as you did in your second example. My rule for students is basically, "If you have the option to be re-specify the thing you're talking about, do it." That's a solid rule for standardized tests, and usually applies to everyday writing (I'll caveat that this rule clashes with "the simplest answer is the right answer", so it is dependent on the actual sentence rather than an "all-or-nothing" rule). Other common mistakes are those you hear about in middle-school (that's not a knock on anyone; rather, I say that to prove how long-ago it was that most of us ever reviewed common grammar and writing rules): "Let's eat, Grandma!" vs. "Let's eat Grandma!" Tying this back to GPT, I've read (and seen) folks write without any punctuation whatsoever. I can't speak to how GPT truly handles that, but if it's anything like "normal writing" and understanding, then punctuation is hugely important.
  - lgas 3y ago
    In my experience GPT-4 does much better at handling sentences without punctuation than most people do. I think this is because as a human we might start to interpret something a certain way before we get to the end of the (possibly punctuationless) sentence and then we get stuck a bit where it's hard to adjust... but GPT-4 is trying to generate something based on probability, and all of the wrong interpretations that we might get stuck on are less probable than the proper interpretation (on average). Of course this is just my pourquoi story and I haven't done any actual tests.
- hammock 3y ago
  The solution is to not use a pronoun (“her”) in cases where it can’t be made clear who or what the antecedent is of that pronoun. In this case, there are two women mentioned in the sentence (not counting the first person narrator), so best to avoid “her” entirely. And yeah I split the infinitive above on purpose
  - didgeoridoo 3y ago
    You of course know this but for others reading: split infinitives are a feature of the English language, not a grammatical error! In this case it lets you cleanly state the solution is “to not use…” Forcing the construction “not to use”, in contrast, ends up creating a garden-path sentence as the reader awaits what the solution actually IS (anticipating “the solution is not to use… but rather…”) Split infinitives get a bad rap because they have no equivalent in Latin, and 19th century grammarians got fussy about things like that. Use them freely!
- blowski 3y ago
  > My Grandma went to her favourite store with me and my Mum. Or if you have an English major: > Encased in the golden fabric of familial bonds, my sweet mother and I stood by the side of my Grandmother as we embarked upon a journey to that venerated haven of retail, which our venerable elder unequivocally deemed her most beloved store.
mensetmanusman 3y ago
I think we will find that certain personality and thinking types will be the most successful with this technology. It will be interesting if only the highly educated are able to best leverage this, because that would be unfortunate and would accelerate inequality. I also really hope this can be used to improve learning to bridge this gap, and this summer I will have my high school intern use this technology frequently with the hope that it accelerates his improvement.
- xrd 3y ago
  I found your comment really stimulating. I think the difference between highly educated and not-so-highly educated is often that the highly educated had coaches. There were people in their lives that corrected them. I coached my son at soccer. He resists any coaching from me, because I'm his dad. I can tell the same thing to another kid and they will often listen and improve. Those kids keep me going as a coach. My son gets better coaching from his peers just by seeing other kids thwart his attempt to score; that's better coaching than I could ever give anyway. But, my point is that AI can be a coach to all. AI isn't going to care if you are hurt by it telling you: "Here is how I am breaking your sentence up, and it does not make sense and I'll show you how I interpret that." A tutor might say that in a denigrating way but hopefully a kid won't hear that from the AI in the same way. AI could be an incredible coach to so many people who wouldn't have parents who could afford it otherwise.
  - pixl97 3y ago
    >But, my point is that AI can be a coach to all. There is still a social component that has to be overcome. If for example a childs parents embrace ignorance that this child out of the gate as a disability. They will have a more difficult time even presented with all the proper tools over a child whos parents embrace learning new things and intellectual exploration. I hope these tools can help everyone learn, but I do fear the limits will not be them, but it will be us.
- raincole 3y ago
  I believe it already brigded the gap between native English speakers and non-native speakers.
weinzierl 3y ago
*"write clearly and provide ample information." ... but if you provide too much information your counterpart might lose interest and forget what you said first.
hammock 3y ago
>I have a side business for ACT/SAT prep. I teach English, and often have to remind students about sentence structure and word flow. For example, I can't say "My mom, my grandma, and I went to her favorite store" -- in that example, there is no clear way to know who "her" is. The Lord’s work. I deal with this issue at work all day long. I am lucky I had a high school English teacher who DRILLED into me the slogan “no pronouns without a clear, one-word antecedent.” That slogan is probably a top 2 mantra for me that has paid dividends in my communication skills. The other one would be “break long sentences into short ones.”
- rrrrrrrrrrrryan 3y ago
  It's crazy how often these simple rules are violated. Sometimes someone will tell a story to be that involves 3+ people, and they'll slowly switch to using pronouns instead of names. I feel a bit like a jerk for continually interrupting them to clarify, but only when they're unfazed and happy to provide the clarification do I realize that this is just how their conversations usually go.
  - kbenson 3y ago
    Yes. I often feel like I'm being too pedantic when asking for clarification about who is doing what from people since I do it way more often than others, and honestly can't tell if I'm just not thinking hard enough about it to intuit the likely correct answer or most people just let it go much longer and eventually work it out from context or assume and risk being wrong.
- droopyEyelids 3y ago
  Pronouns are truly the bane of clear communication. I set this rule for my team so many times and it's awesome how much harder people have to think, and how much better the team works when people can't write a sentence like "It's not working right do you know if anything changed with it?"
  - pixl97 3y ago
    Me: "What's the problem" Them: "You know, the thing with the thing"
fnordpiglet 3y ago
I think something interesting is that this unlocks huge potential for English majors and puts engineering / math / comp sci at a structural disadvantage. Hmmm
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  I would definitely not assume that English majors communicate more clearly and precisely than STEM majors.
  - crazygringo 3y ago
    In my experience, English majors definitely communicate more clearly in English. After all, that's literally what they're studying. While STEM majors often communicate more precisely within a domain-specific language (whether chemistry or code). After all, that's literally what they're studying. And obviously these are both generalizations. You'll always find some terribly unclear English majors, just as you'll find some terribly imprecise STEM majors. But we should hope that their education is having some effect here.
  - fnordpiglet 3y ago
    I would assume as a body the median English major, who is graded primarily on their ability to write English to communicate clearly and precisely on complex topics related to English literature are better at precise English communication on complex topics than people who are primarily graded on their ability to write math/code/etc and generally intentionally avoid writing and language classes. In my engineering cs program most of us took formal logic from LAS to satisfy our humanities requirement. Exceptions certainly exist but surely you don’t believe the mode favors engineering students here.
  - throwaway675309 3y ago
    Agreed, you would more likely find that an English major speaks with more semantic and syntactical accuracy, whereas stem majors would be able to break down a problem or a communiqué into far more quantifiably precise "units".
hospitalJail 3y ago
>I see many people claim GPT-n is "dumb" Depends. Can't do math or logic. I have a question I ask ChatGPT to see if it can do logic yet, it still cannot. (Can't mention this question here or it will get fixed.) Its great for brain storming or low risk problems. I don't think the accuracy problem will ever be fixed. I probably 5x my productivity as well, but that doesnt mean its able to do logic.
- malfist 3y ago
  > Can't mention this question here or it will get fixed Why is that a problem?
  - pclmulqdq 3y ago
    This happens with a lot of "test prompts." People don't release these because they want the underlying issue fixed, but the AI companies instead change the RLHF process to patch your particular example.
    - ldhough 3y ago
      An example: GPT4 at release still had issues with "What is heavier, a pound of feathers or two pounds of bricks." It would very consistently claim that they were equal in weight because usually the question is posed with the weights being equal. A bunch of people were mentioning it online and now it doesn't work anymore.
      - pclmulqdq 3y ago
        The same issue occurred with the test, "What is heavier, a pound of feathers or a Great British pound?" There is an obvious answer here, but ChatGPT was insisting they are the same weight.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - letmevoteplease 3y ago
nickfromseattle 3y ago
> Similarly, I see many people claim GPT-n is "dumb", yet when I see their prompt, I realize it was a bad prompt. I see this comment a lot, but I drew a different conclusion. People with high reading / writing ability assign less value to GPT's writing ability, whereas people with lower reading / writing ability assign more value to GPT's ability. Edit: > yet when I see their prompt, I realize it was a bad prompt. So, I asked ChatGPT to re-write my reply. ---- Prompt: "Re-write this text, but more intelligently." Output: I frequently encounter this observation, yet I have arrived at a divergent inference. Individuals possessing exceptional proficiency in reading and writing tend to ascribe a diminished significance to the writing aptitude of GPT, whereas individuals with more limited abilities in reading and writing tend to attach greater value to GPT's prowess. ---- Prompt: "Re-write this text, but make it sound better." Output: I frequently encounter this recurring sentiment, yet I have formulated an alternative perspective. Individuals endowed with advanced reading and writing prowess tend to bestow a lesser degree of importance upon GPT's writing ability, whereas individuals possessing more modest proficiency in reading and writing are inclined to accord greater significance to GPT's remarkable capabilities. ----- Prompt: "Re-write this text, but try and use the word 'ability' less." Output: I frequently come across this comment, but my conclusion differs. Individuals who excel in reading and writing tend to place a diminished emphasis on GPT's writing prowess, while those with more limited skills in reading and writing tend to attach greater importance to GPT's capabilities. ---- Conclusion: I like my original reply better than GPT's re-write.
- joshka 3y ago
  Those are bad prompts. Not sure if you're being intentionally ironic here in demonstrating the parent's claim. --- Revise the following paragraph that serves as a reply to a comment on Hacker News about people's perception of GPT's writing ability based on their own reading and writing abilities. Focus on rephrasing the original paragraph for clarity and conciseness. Provide several options for tone (formal, informal, persuasive, neutral, and a tone that best fits the writing style of hacker news comments): "I see this comment a lot, but I drew a different conclusion. People with high reading / writing ability assign less value to GPT's writing ability, whereas people with lower reading / writing ability assign more value to GPT's ability." assistant: --- Formal tone: I often encounter this remark, yet my inference varies. Individuals possessing advanced reading and writing skills tend to undervalue GPT's writing capabilities, while those with less developed skills are more likely to appreciate GPT's proficiency. Informal tone: I come across this kinda comment a lot, but I think differently. Folks who are really good at reading and writing don't give GPT much credit, but those who aren't as skilled seem to be more impressed by GPT's skills. Persuasive tone: I frequently see this opinion, but I urge you to consider an alternative perspective. It appears that those with exceptional reading and writing talents may underestimate GPT's writing prowess, while individuals with more modest abilities are inclined to recognize and appreciate the value GPT brings to the table. Neutral tone: This comment is quite common, but my interpretation is distinct. It seems that people with higher reading and writing skills tend to downplay GPT's writing capacity, while those with lower skills are more likely to acknowledge GPT's capabilities. Hacker News comment tone: I've seen this comment a bunch, but I've got a different take on it. It looks like people who are really good at reading/writing don't think GPT's all that great, while those who aren't as strong in those areas tend to give GPT more props. --- The hn and informal tones are subjectively better. Persuasive wouldn't fit hn, but probably would fit in a conference talk. You could also specify what tone you're going for (or ask the LLM for guidance on the tone / other aspects of the rewrite). GPT is also pretty good at helping write better prompts, take a look at the following prompt via[1]: --- I want you to become my Prompt Creator. Your goal is to help me craft the best possible prompt for my needs. The prompt will be used by you, ChatGPT. You will follow the following process: 1. Your first response will be to ask me what the prompt should be about. I will provide my answer, but we will need to improve it through continual iterations by going through the next steps. 2. Based on my input, you will generate 3 sections. a) Revised prompt (provide your rewritten prompt. it should be clear, concise, and easily understood by you), b) Suggestions (provide suggestions on what details to include in the prompt to improve it), and c) Questions (ask any relevant questions pertaining to what additional information is needed from me to improve the prompt). 3. We will continue this iterative process with me providing additional information to you and you updating the prompt in the Revised prompt section until it's complete. --- [1]: https://www.skool.com/chatgpt/promptgenerator?p=1e5ede93 https://www.skool.com/chatgpt/promptgenerator?p=1e5ede93
raincole 3y ago
> I find it interesting that most of these tactics can be summarized into: "write clearly and provide ample information." I'm so used to ChatGPT now that for any non-trivial programming task that I'm not 100% confident with, I check how ChatGPT approaches it first. Not just one or two sentence, but a detailed summary with code example. Usually a single prompt of mine costs >300 tokens. Sometimes >1000 tokens. I honestly don't know whether ChatGPT made me dumber or smarter. On one hand I'm relying on it a lot. On the other hand, I'm forced to actually think over my task in hand, not just telling myself that I've thought it through.
- maxdoop 3y ago
  Ha, I’ve done the same thing. GPT-4 is like a super nice intern that knows a ton but doesn’t get the big picture.
mcguire 3y ago
I submitted a puzzle from https://dmackinnon1.github.io/fickleSentries/ https://dmackinnon1.github.io/fickleSentries/, with the basic prompt, "I am going to present you with a logic puzzle. I would like you to solve the puzzle." https://pastebin.com/a3WzgvK4 https://pastebin.com/a3WzgvK4 The solution GPT-3.5 (I don't have access to 4.) gave was: "In conclusion, based on the statements and the given information, the treasure in the cave must be copper." The solution given with the puzzle is "Here is one way to think about it: If Guard 1 is telling the truth, then the treasure must be diamonds. If Guard 1 is lying, then the treasure can be copper or gold. If Guard 2 is telling the truth, then the treasure must be silver. If Guard 2 is lying, then the treasure can be diamonds or rubies. The only possible option based on the statements of both guards is diamonds." Is there any way to improve that prompt?
- xcv123 3y ago
  Here's the solution from GPT-4 https://chat.openai.com/share/b03b1d46-c34d-49f4-afde-4fe03f1450f7 https://chat.openai.com/share/b03b1d46-c34d-49f4-afde-4fe03f...
  - mcguire 3y ago
    That is some very weird reasoning, though. "Looking at their statements again, if Guard 1 is telling the truth about guarding diamonds (as we deduced), he would be lying about the silver. This is okay, because Guard 1 can tell a half-truth while guarding diamonds. For Guard 2, if he's telling the truth about the silver, he'd be lying about the platinum, which is also allowed. So the treasure they are guarding can be diamonds. This makes Guard 1's statement (The treasure is either silver or diamonds) half-true and Guard 2's statement (The treasure is either silver or platinum) half-false."
diydsp 3y ago
In what pre-ChatGPT world did "write clearly and provide ample information" include such familiar and long-known tips as: * Ask the model to adopt a persona * Use delimiters to clearly indicate distinct parts of the input * Specify the desired length of the output > others' poor experience is a result of their more layman writing style. I guess we'll have to pass the hat around for those wretched souls. In the meantime, someone needs to tell the English teacher that "layman" is not an adjective. > sentence structure and word flow In my experience ChatGPT doesn't care about those. It's able to infer through quite a large amount of sloppiness. The much larger gains come from guiding it into a model of the world, as opposed to direct it to respond to lean perspectives like, "What do I eat to be better?"
- chowells 3y ago
  It's perfectly acceptable to use nouns to modify nouns in English. "Beach house". "Stone hearth". "Microphone stand". Go looking for more, I bet you can find a lot. The distinguishing feature of an adjective isn't that it modifies a noun. It's that it has no other use, at least in standard American English.
  - foobarbecue 3y ago
    Many nouns are also adjectives. Layman is not one of them.
    - chowells 3y ago
      That analysis is incongruent with modern linguistic descriptions. > We can say: "A noun functions as a modifier. An adjective functions as a modifier." But not: "A noun used as an adjective." https://www.grammar-quizzes.com/adj_nounmodifiers.html https://www.grammar-quizzes.com/adj_nounmodifiers.html https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/nouns-that-look-like-adjectives https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/nouns-that-loo... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noun_adjunct https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noun_adjunct The fact that everyone knows what a "layman writing style" means that the only place it's failing is your personal list of acceptable attributive nouns. But English isn't static. It runs on consensus. And consensus here that there's nothing weird about that use.
glenngillen 3y ago
It's interesting you say this. I spent the weekend playing with ChatGPT to try and get it to build a Swift app for iOS and macOS (I have zero previous experience with Swift). Thankfully I had a compiler to back me up and tell me if things actually worked. I found the whole experience a little jarring. ChatGPT was pretty good at generating some code, but it felt a lot like a job interview where I'm working hard to coach a candidate into the right answer. Or, now that you mention it, some previous experiences I've had trying to work with outsourced providers where we're trying to overcome a language barrier. The problems are often that I got exactly what I asked for. Not a thing more, no context that I thought would be assumed (e.g., don't remove the functionality I asked you to implement in the previous step), just a very literal interpretation of the asks. I definitely found myself quickly adapting to try and be clearer and potentially over expressive in my prompts.
_ea1k 3y ago
I've been surprised at how many times I've realized that a bad result from GPT was because I specified the problem inadequately or incorrectly. Or that I took the solution, but applied it incorrectly.
nathan_compton 3y ago
I find GPT4 incredibly productive and useful and I would still emphatically call it dumb.
taf2 3y ago
Heh yeah me too for software — fun thing we have all of our after hours chats powered by gpt 4 with our documentation. Many people try to chat with it like a dumb bot using single words… few people have figured out you get very in-depth answers - so over all I’m very pleased with our results but still funny how people react to it…
ojosilva 3y ago
> I've been astounded by GPT-4 and have nearly 5x-ed my productivity with it (for coding and for parsing documents). I wonder if StackOverflow, Quora, GitHub Issues and similar websites have noticed a decrease in new questions/issues raised? LLMs have a kind of network effect that it makes people ask less questions in public sites and more privately to their own LLM sessions, and maybe even give up if the LLM does not answer. That reduces critical mass at q&a forums, so, given enough time, less people will go there for answers. I'd say that's a great loss! In a way, sarcastically speaking, it's one of AI's way of becoming our overlords.
- hxugufjfjf 3y ago
  They have. There was a post on HN earlier today about a 17% decrease or something on SO.

BeFlatXIII 3y ago

What are some other clarifications to that sentence besides those in the forms "My mom and I went with my grandma to her favorite store" or "I went with my mom and grandma to my mom's favorite store"?

airstrike 3y ago
I don't love either one of these but.... My mom took my grandma and I to her favorite store My grandma and I went to my mom's favorite store with her
- hammock 3y ago
  Neither of those sentences is clear
  - nomel 3y ago
    Agreed. Ditch the ambiguous “her”. “My mom, grandma, and I went to my grandma’s favorite store.”
  - mrtranscendence 3y ago
    How about this: “It was my grandma’s birthday and we wanted to make it special! My mom, my grandma, and I all went to her favorite store.” I’d argue that using “my grandma” instead of “her” would be unpleasantly repetitive there.
    - hammock 3y ago
      That approach is marginally better. It’s still arguably unclear. The store could be your mom’s favorite store to get special gifts from If you think using Grandma three times is too much, you could replace the first Grandma in the second sentence with “she.” For instance, “she, my mom, and I went…”
- atlantic 3y ago
  My Mom went to her favourite store, and took Gran and me with her.
- theonething 3y ago
  > My mom took my grandma and I to her favorite store Shouldn't that be me, not I?
maxdoop 3y ago
Yes, you'd need to specify the subject of the sentence as you did in your second example. My rule for students is basically, "If you have the option to be re-specify the thing you're talking about, do it." That's a solid rule for standardized tests, and usually applies to everyday writing (I'll caveat that this rule clashes with "the simplest answer is the right answer", so it is dependent on the actual sentence rather than an "all-or-nothing" rule). Other common mistakes are those you hear about in middle-school (that's not a knock on anyone; rather, I say that to prove how long-ago it was that most of us ever reviewed common grammar and writing rules): "Let's eat, Grandma!" vs. "Let's eat Grandma!" Tying this back to GPT, I've read (and seen) folks write without any punctuation whatsoever. I can't speak to how GPT truly handles that, but if it's anything like "normal writing" and understanding, then punctuation is hugely important.
- lgas 3y ago
  In my experience GPT-4 does much better at handling sentences without punctuation than most people do. I think this is because as a human we might start to interpret something a certain way before we get to the end of the (possibly punctuationless) sentence and then we get stuck a bit where it's hard to adjust... but GPT-4 is trying to generate something based on probability, and all of the wrong interpretations that we might get stuck on are less probable than the proper interpretation (on average). Of course this is just my pourquoi story and I haven't done any actual tests.
hammock 3y ago
The solution is to not use a pronoun (“her”) in cases where it can’t be made clear who or what the antecedent is of that pronoun. In this case, there are two women mentioned in the sentence (not counting the first person narrator), so best to avoid “her” entirely. And yeah I split the infinitive above on purpose
- didgeoridoo 3y ago
  You of course know this but for others reading: split infinitives are a feature of the English language, not a grammatical error! In this case it lets you cleanly state the solution is “to not use…” Forcing the construction “not to use”, in contrast, ends up creating a garden-path sentence as the reader awaits what the solution actually IS (anticipating “the solution is not to use… but rather…”) Split infinitives get a bad rap because they have no equivalent in Latin, and 19th century grammarians got fussy about things like that. Use them freely!
blowski 3y ago
> My Grandma went to her favourite store with me and my Mum. Or if you have an English major: > Encased in the golden fabric of familial bonds, my sweet mother and I stood by the side of my Grandmother as we embarked upon a journey to that venerated haven of retail, which our venerable elder unequivocally deemed her most beloved store.

mensetmanusman 3y ago

I think we will find that certain personality and thinking types will be the most successful with this technology. It will be interesting if only the highly educated are able to best leverage this, because that would be unfortunate and would accelerate inequality. I also really hope this can be used to improve learning to bridge this gap, and this summer I will have my high school intern use this technology frequently with the hope that it accelerates his improvement.

xrd 3y ago
I found your comment really stimulating. I think the difference between highly educated and not-so-highly educated is often that the highly educated had coaches. There were people in their lives that corrected them. I coached my son at soccer. He resists any coaching from me, because I'm his dad. I can tell the same thing to another kid and they will often listen and improve. Those kids keep me going as a coach. My son gets better coaching from his peers just by seeing other kids thwart his attempt to score; that's better coaching than I could ever give anyway. But, my point is that AI can be a coach to all. AI isn't going to care if you are hurt by it telling you: "Here is how I am breaking your sentence up, and it does not make sense and I'll show you how I interpret that." A tutor might say that in a denigrating way but hopefully a kid won't hear that from the AI in the same way. AI could be an incredible coach to so many people who wouldn't have parents who could afford it otherwise.
- pixl97 3y ago
  >But, my point is that AI can be a coach to all. There is still a social component that has to be overcome. If for example a childs parents embrace ignorance that this child out of the gate as a disability. They will have a more difficult time even presented with all the proper tools over a child whos parents embrace learning new things and intellectual exploration. I hope these tools can help everyone learn, but I do fear the limits will not be them, but it will be us.
raincole 3y ago
I believe it already brigded the gap between native English speakers and non-native speakers.

weinzierl 3y ago

*"write clearly and provide ample information." ... but if you provide too much information your counterpart might lose interest and forget what you said first.

hammock 3y ago

>I have a side business for ACT/SAT prep. I teach English, and often have to remind students about sentence structure and word flow. For example, I can't say "My mom, my grandma, and I went to her favorite store" -- in that example, there is no clear way to know who "her" is. The Lord’s work. I deal with this issue at work all day long. I am lucky I had a high school English teacher who DRILLED into me the slogan “no pronouns without a clear, one-word antecedent.” That slogan is probably a top 2 mantra for me that has paid dividends in my communication skills. The other one would be “break long sentences into short ones.”

rrrrrrrrrrrryan 3y ago
It's crazy how often these simple rules are violated. Sometimes someone will tell a story to be that involves 3+ people, and they'll slowly switch to using pronouns instead of names. I feel a bit like a jerk for continually interrupting them to clarify, but only when they're unfazed and happy to provide the clarification do I realize that this is just how their conversations usually go.
- kbenson 3y ago
  Yes. I often feel like I'm being too pedantic when asking for clarification about who is doing what from people since I do it way more often than others, and honestly can't tell if I'm just not thinking hard enough about it to intuit the likely correct answer or most people just let it go much longer and eventually work it out from context or assume and risk being wrong.
droopyEyelids 3y ago
Pronouns are truly the bane of clear communication. I set this rule for my team so many times and it's awesome how much harder people have to think, and how much better the team works when people can't write a sentence like "It's not working right do you know if anything changed with it?"
- pixl97 3y ago
  Me: "What's the problem" Them: "You know, the thing with the thing"

fnordpiglet 3y ago

I think something interesting is that this unlocks huge potential for English majors and puts engineering / math / comp sci at a structural disadvantage. Hmmm

robertlagrant 3y ago
I would definitely not assume that English majors communicate more clearly and precisely than STEM majors.
- crazygringo 3y ago
  In my experience, English majors definitely communicate more clearly in English. After all, that's literally what they're studying. While STEM majors often communicate more precisely within a domain-specific language (whether chemistry or code). After all, that's literally what they're studying. And obviously these are both generalizations. You'll always find some terribly unclear English majors, just as you'll find some terribly imprecise STEM majors. But we should hope that their education is having some effect here.
- fnordpiglet 3y ago
  I would assume as a body the median English major, who is graded primarily on their ability to write English to communicate clearly and precisely on complex topics related to English literature are better at precise English communication on complex topics than people who are primarily graded on their ability to write math/code/etc and generally intentionally avoid writing and language classes. In my engineering cs program most of us took formal logic from LAS to satisfy our humanities requirement. Exceptions certainly exist but surely you don’t believe the mode favors engineering students here.
- throwaway675309 3y ago
  Agreed, you would more likely find that an English major speaks with more semantic and syntactical accuracy, whereas stem majors would be able to break down a problem or a communiqué into far more quantifiably precise "units".

hospitalJail 3y ago

>I see many people claim GPT-n is "dumb" Depends. Can't do math or logic. I have a question I ask ChatGPT to see if it can do logic yet, it still cannot. (Can't mention this question here or it will get fixed.) Its great for brain storming or low risk problems. I don't think the accuracy problem will ever be fixed. I probably 5x my productivity as well, but that doesnt mean its able to do logic.

malfist 3y ago
> Can't mention this question here or it will get fixed Why is that a problem?
- pclmulqdq 3y ago
  This happens with a lot of "test prompts." People don't release these because they want the underlying issue fixed, but the AI companies instead change the RLHF process to patch your particular example.
  - ldhough 3y ago
    An example: GPT4 at release still had issues with "What is heavier, a pound of feathers or two pounds of bricks." It would very consistently claim that they were equal in weight because usually the question is posed with the weights being equal. A bunch of people were mentioning it online and now it doesn't work anymore.
    - pclmulqdq 3y ago
      The same issue occurred with the test, "What is heavier, a pound of feathers or a Great British pound?" There is an obvious answer here, but ChatGPT was insisting they are the same weight.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - letmevoteplease 3y ago

nickfromseattle 3y ago

> Similarly, I see many people claim GPT-n is "dumb", yet when I see their prompt, I realize it was a bad prompt. I see this comment a lot, but I drew a different conclusion. People with high reading / writing ability assign less value to GPT's writing ability, whereas people with lower reading / writing ability assign more value to GPT's ability. Edit: > yet when I see their prompt, I realize it was a bad prompt. So, I asked ChatGPT to re-write my reply. ---- Prompt: "Re-write this text, but more intelligently." Output: I frequently encounter this observation, yet I have arrived at a divergent inference. Individuals possessing exceptional proficiency in reading and writing tend to ascribe a diminished significance to the writing aptitude of GPT, whereas individuals with more limited abilities in reading and writing tend to attach greater value to GPT's prowess. ---- Prompt: "Re-write this text, but make it sound better." Output: I frequently encounter this recurring sentiment, yet I have formulated an alternative perspective. Individuals endowed with advanced reading and writing prowess tend to bestow a lesser degree of importance upon GPT's writing ability, whereas individuals possessing more modest proficiency in reading and writing are inclined to accord greater significance to GPT's remarkable capabilities. ----- Prompt: "Re-write this text, but try and use the word 'ability' less." Output: I frequently come across this comment, but my conclusion differs. Individuals who excel in reading and writing tend to place a diminished emphasis on GPT's writing prowess, while those with more limited skills in reading and writing tend to attach greater importance to GPT's capabilities. ---- Conclusion: I like my original reply better than GPT's re-write.

joshka 3y ago
Those are bad prompts. Not sure if you're being intentionally ironic here in demonstrating the parent's claim. --- Revise the following paragraph that serves as a reply to a comment on Hacker News about people's perception of GPT's writing ability based on their own reading and writing abilities. Focus on rephrasing the original paragraph for clarity and conciseness. Provide several options for tone (formal, informal, persuasive, neutral, and a tone that best fits the writing style of hacker news comments): "I see this comment a lot, but I drew a different conclusion. People with high reading / writing ability assign less value to GPT's writing ability, whereas people with lower reading / writing ability assign more value to GPT's ability." assistant: --- Formal tone: I often encounter this remark, yet my inference varies. Individuals possessing advanced reading and writing skills tend to undervalue GPT's writing capabilities, while those with less developed skills are more likely to appreciate GPT's proficiency. Informal tone: I come across this kinda comment a lot, but I think differently. Folks who are really good at reading and writing don't give GPT much credit, but those who aren't as skilled seem to be more impressed by GPT's skills. Persuasive tone: I frequently see this opinion, but I urge you to consider an alternative perspective. It appears that those with exceptional reading and writing talents may underestimate GPT's writing prowess, while individuals with more modest abilities are inclined to recognize and appreciate the value GPT brings to the table. Neutral tone: This comment is quite common, but my interpretation is distinct. It seems that people with higher reading and writing skills tend to downplay GPT's writing capacity, while those with lower skills are more likely to acknowledge GPT's capabilities. Hacker News comment tone: I've seen this comment a bunch, but I've got a different take on it. It looks like people who are really good at reading/writing don't think GPT's all that great, while those who aren't as strong in those areas tend to give GPT more props. --- The hn and informal tones are subjectively better. Persuasive wouldn't fit hn, but probably would fit in a conference talk. You could also specify what tone you're going for (or ask the LLM for guidance on the tone / other aspects of the rewrite). GPT is also pretty good at helping write better prompts, take a look at the following prompt via[1]: --- I want you to become my Prompt Creator. Your goal is to help me craft the best possible prompt for my needs. The prompt will be used by you, ChatGPT. You will follow the following process: 1. Your first response will be to ask me what the prompt should be about. I will provide my answer, but we will need to improve it through continual iterations by going through the next steps. 2. Based on my input, you will generate 3 sections. a) Revised prompt (provide your rewritten prompt. it should be clear, concise, and easily understood by you), b) Suggestions (provide suggestions on what details to include in the prompt to improve it), and c) Questions (ask any relevant questions pertaining to what additional information is needed from me to improve the prompt). 3. We will continue this iterative process with me providing additional information to you and you updating the prompt in the Revised prompt section until it's complete. --- [1]: https://www.skool.com/chatgpt/promptgenerator?p=1e5ede93 https://www.skool.com/chatgpt/promptgenerator?p=1e5ede93

raincole 3y ago

> I find it interesting that most of these tactics can be summarized into: "write clearly and provide ample information." I'm so used to ChatGPT now that for any non-trivial programming task that I'm not 100% confident with, I check how ChatGPT approaches it first. Not just one or two sentence, but a detailed summary with code example. Usually a single prompt of mine costs >300 tokens. Sometimes >1000 tokens. I honestly don't know whether ChatGPT made me dumber or smarter. On one hand I'm relying on it a lot. On the other hand, I'm forced to actually think over my task in hand, not just telling myself that I've thought it through.

maxdoop 3y ago
Ha, I’ve done the same thing. GPT-4 is like a super nice intern that knows a ton but doesn’t get the big picture.

mcguire 3y ago

I submitted a puzzle from https://dmackinnon1.github.io/fickleSentries/ https://dmackinnon1.github.io/fickleSentries/, with the basic prompt, "I am going to present you with a logic puzzle. I would like you to solve the puzzle." https://pastebin.com/a3WzgvK4 https://pastebin.com/a3WzgvK4 The solution GPT-3.5 (I don't have access to 4.) gave was: "In conclusion, based on the statements and the given information, the treasure in the cave must be copper." The solution given with the puzzle is "Here is one way to think about it: If Guard 1 is telling the truth, then the treasure must be diamonds. If Guard 1 is lying, then the treasure can be copper or gold. If Guard 2 is telling the truth, then the treasure must be silver. If Guard 2 is lying, then the treasure can be diamonds or rubies. The only possible option based on the statements of both guards is diamonds." Is there any way to improve that prompt?

xcv123 3y ago
Here's the solution from GPT-4 https://chat.openai.com/share/b03b1d46-c34d-49f4-afde-4fe03f1450f7 https://chat.openai.com/share/b03b1d46-c34d-49f4-afde-4fe03f...
- mcguire 3y ago
  That is some very weird reasoning, though. "Looking at their statements again, if Guard 1 is telling the truth about guarding diamonds (as we deduced), he would be lying about the silver. This is okay, because Guard 1 can tell a half-truth while guarding diamonds. For Guard 2, if he's telling the truth about the silver, he'd be lying about the platinum, which is also allowed. So the treasure they are guarding can be diamonds. This makes Guard 1's statement (The treasure is either silver or diamonds) half-true and Guard 2's statement (The treasure is either silver or platinum) half-false."

diydsp 3y ago

In what pre-ChatGPT world did "write clearly and provide ample information" include such familiar and long-known tips as: * Ask the model to adopt a persona * Use delimiters to clearly indicate distinct parts of the input * Specify the desired length of the output > others' poor experience is a result of their more layman writing style. I guess we'll have to pass the hat around for those wretched souls. In the meantime, someone needs to tell the English teacher that "layman" is not an adjective. > sentence structure and word flow In my experience ChatGPT doesn't care about those. It's able to infer through quite a large amount of sloppiness. The much larger gains come from guiding it into a model of the world, as opposed to direct it to respond to lean perspectives like, "What do I eat to be better?"

chowells 3y ago
It's perfectly acceptable to use nouns to modify nouns in English. "Beach house". "Stone hearth". "Microphone stand". Go looking for more, I bet you can find a lot. The distinguishing feature of an adjective isn't that it modifies a noun. It's that it has no other use, at least in standard American English.
- foobarbecue 3y ago
  Many nouns are also adjectives. Layman is not one of them.
  - chowells 3y ago
    That analysis is incongruent with modern linguistic descriptions. > We can say: "A noun functions as a modifier. An adjective functions as a modifier." But not: "A noun used as an adjective." https://www.grammar-quizzes.com/adj_nounmodifiers.html https://www.grammar-quizzes.com/adj_nounmodifiers.html https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/nouns-that-look-like-adjectives https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/nouns-that-loo... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noun_adjunct https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noun_adjunct The fact that everyone knows what a "layman writing style" means that the only place it's failing is your personal list of acceptable attributive nouns. But English isn't static. It runs on consensus. And consensus here that there's nothing weird about that use.

glenngillen 3y ago

It's interesting you say this. I spent the weekend playing with ChatGPT to try and get it to build a Swift app for iOS and macOS (I have zero previous experience with Swift). Thankfully I had a compiler to back me up and tell me if things actually worked. I found the whole experience a little jarring. ChatGPT was pretty good at generating some code, but it felt a lot like a job interview where I'm working hard to coach a candidate into the right answer. Or, now that you mention it, some previous experiences I've had trying to work with outsourced providers where we're trying to overcome a language barrier. The problems are often that I got exactly what I asked for. Not a thing more, no context that I thought would be assumed (e.g., don't remove the functionality I asked you to implement in the previous step), just a very literal interpretation of the asks. I definitely found myself quickly adapting to try and be clearer and potentially over expressive in my prompts.

_ea1k 3y ago

I've been surprised at how many times I've realized that a bad result from GPT was because I specified the problem inadequately or incorrectly. Or that I took the solution, but applied it incorrectly.

nathan_compton 3y ago

I find GPT4 incredibly productive and useful and I would still emphatically call it dumb.

taf2 3y ago

Heh yeah me too for software — fun thing we have all of our after hours chats powered by gpt 4 with our documentation. Many people try to chat with it like a dumb bot using single words… few people have figured out you get very in-depth answers - so over all I’m very pleased with our results but still funny how people react to it…

ojosilva 3y ago

> I've been astounded by GPT-4 and have nearly 5x-ed my productivity with it (for coding and for parsing documents). I wonder if StackOverflow, Quora, GitHub Issues and similar websites have noticed a decrease in new questions/issues raised? LLMs have a kind of network effect that it makes people ask less questions in public sites and more privately to their own LLM sessions, and maybe even give up if the LLM does not answer. That reduces critical mass at q&a forums, so, given enough time, less people will go there for answers. I'd say that's a great loss! In a way, sarcastically speaking, it's one of AI's way of becoming our overlords.

hxugufjfjf 3y ago
They have. There was a post on HN earlier today about a 17% decrease or something on SO.