3 ms·

> Prompting LLMs correctly to get high quality answers is a skill. That's like saying "reading the future from chicken entrails is a skill".

• mrtranscendence 3y ago
  I don’t know how to square this with the fact that I routinely ask GPT-4 for code and get back answers that are in fact correct. You’re making it sound like it’s purely random, like I’m just getting back a string of zhrueksnbd8373&;! or something.
  • chx 3y ago
    But that is what you get, it's just dressed up to sound like the answer. But it's not the answer , it can not be. If it accidentally is the answer, that's an accident, nothing more. See my example above about dangling commits...
    • naasking 3y ago
      > If it accidentally is the answer, that's an accident, nothing more. Accuracy rates much, much higher than chance are not accidental. While you're pointing to a valid failure mode of LLMs, you're not using the correct words to describe it which is leading you to say nonsense.
      • chx 3y ago
        yes, it is nonsense, all of it, we agree.
        • naasking 3y ago
          All of what you wrote is nonsense? Ok then.
          • chx 3y ago
            No, all that LLMs produce is nonsense.
• naasking 3y ago
  > That's like saying "reading the future from chicken entrails is a skill". If I could read the future from chicken entrails with as high a reply accuracy as I get from ChatGPT, then I would fully endorse that too.