Those are bad prompts. Not sure if you're being intentionally ironic here in demonstrating the parent's claim. --- Revise the following paragraph that ser

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