4 ms·
> Scientists are more likely to have a richer vocabulary and write longer paragraphs containing more diverse words than machines. They also use punctuation like
by cainxinth 3y ago
> Scientists are more likely to have a richer vocabulary and write longer paragraphs containing more diverse words than machines. They also use punctuation like question marks, brackets, semicolons more frequently than ChatGPT, except for speech marks used for quotations.
> Real science papers also use more equivocal language – like "however", "but", "although" as well as "this" and "because".
You can prompt ChatGPT to write in that style. For example, I have a semi-standard prompt I often use:
“Don’t just give a list of information; write in engaging and well-written paragraph form with transitions. (It’s ok to use some bullet points or lists, but the entire piece should not be a list.) Don’t use emojis and don’t overuse any of the following words (or their conjugates or other tenses): ensure, enable, seamless, solution, crucial, critical, vital, invaluable, essential, welcome, game-changer, unleash, or streamline. You can use each once or twice at most. Vary sentence length to improve readability.”
- pella 3y agoor other version: "Craft your text with the characteristics of a reflective conversationalist. Be sure to weave in personal insights, express opinions, hesitate, reconsider, use colloquial language, and make occasional minor errors to reflect human thought patterns."
- irthomasthomas 3y agoI see you are further along the path to prompting wisdom than op. Positive directions are far superior to negative ones. LLMs don't understand the concept of negation. They work, in a way, by assigning semantic tokens that describe the relationship to other tokens. How could you encode the idea of a negated token? I have wondered if you could use a similar mechanism to the repetition penalty to penalise chosen tokens that you want to downrank.
- aubanel 3y agoI this idea of LLMs not understanding the concept of negation is false. Both if you ask ChatGPT (GPT4) to explain the concept of negation or ask it to do a task that leverages negation, you get sound results. Example of a conversation leveraging negation: User Hello GPT. Could you write me a sentence longer than 6 words ? ChatGPT: Of course, I'd be happy to help! Here's a sentence for you: "The sun set behind the mountains, casting a stunning array of colors across the evening sky." User: Now, could you write me a sentence not longer than 6 words ? ChatGPT: Absolutely, here it is: "Cats quietly nap in the sun."
- Nephx 3y agoMerged one I've been using with yours, seems to output articles of higher quality. "Write as a reflective human conversationalist, using transitional words and varied sentence types for conciseness and readability. Combine personal insights, opinions, and colloquial language with occasional very minor errors. Group similar info, follow the "one-idea rule," and avoid overusing certain words, emojis, and excessive lists. Vary sentence length to improve readability and engage the reader."
- felideon 3y ago> You can use each once or twice at most. Vary sentence length to improve readability. Does this part really do anything? Last I checked, ChatGPT can’t actually count. If it seems to comply, I would say it’s accidental.
- sebzim4500 3y agoIt counts approximately in my experience. If you tell it to use 5 word sentences it might occasionally use 6 or 7 words but it will never use 30 words. This is with GPT-4, it's possible GPT-3.5 is much worse.