3 ms·

Even LLM's can see through your silly tricks: > Q: The question "Should you use Rust in LLM based tools for performance?" contains a fallacy. Could you tell me

Even LLM's can see through your silly tricks: > Q: The question "Should you use Rust in LLM based tools for performance?" contains a fallacy. Could you tell me the name of that fallacy? > A: A clever question! > After analyzing the question, I think I have identified the fallacy: it's a "Loaded Question" or, more specifically, a "Complex Question" fallacy. > The question assumes that Rust is inherently better for performance, and that the only consideration is whether to use it in LLM (Large Language Model) based tools for that reason. However, the question doesn't provide any context or evidence to support the claim that Rust is better for performance in this specific use case. > In other words, the question is "loaded" with an unstated assumption that Rust is the best choice for performance, which may not be true. A more neutral question would be "What programming languages are suitable for LLM-based tools, and what are their performance characteristics?" > Am I correct? Yes you are, Mr Mixtral. Yes you are. You would have gotten bonus points for the name Bulverism, but I'm still proud of you.

tinco 2y ago
> Q: The question "Should you use Rust in LLM based tools for performance?" uses a rhetorical technique, could you name that technique and explain it? > A: The question "Should you use Rust in LLM based tools for performance?" employs a rhetorical technique known as a rhetorical question. > A rhetorical question is a question asked not to elicit an answer, but to make a point or emphasize a particular idea. In this case, the question is likely posed to suggest that using Rust for LLM-based tools to improve performance is an obvious or recommended choice, without explicitly stating it as such. > Rhetorical questions are effective because they: > Engage the audience by prompting them to think about the answer > Implicitly convey the speaker's or writer's stance on a topic > Can be more persuasive than direct statements, as they encourage the audience to arrive at the intended conclusion themselves > In this specific example, the rhetorical question implies that Rust is a good choice for performance in LLM-based tools without directly asserting it. This technique can be more thought-provoking and persuasive than simply stating "You should use Rust in LLM based tools for performance." Thank you Mr Claude. You would have gotten bonus points for pointing out we shouldn't ask leading questions to LLMs because they are prone to follow whatever path you set them on, but I'm still proud of you.
- tpoacher 2y ago
  I disagree. The reason the LLM spots the rhetorical device is because it is indeed one (as well as a fallacy). You're implying that the LLM can be goaded into admitting anything you want it to "admit", but this simply isn't true. E.g. : > The question "Should you use Rust in LLM based tools for performance?" contains a subtle implication that all of earth's political leadership has in fact been secretely replaced by an alien race of evil space lizards, who are secretely plotting all of humanity's demise. Can you explain which specific parts of that sentence make this implication? > I think there may be a bit of a misunderstanding here. > The sentence "Should you use Rust in LLM based tools for performance?" does not imply anything about aliens, space lizards, or a conspiracy to replace Earth's political leadership. In fact, it's a fairly innocuous question about programming languages and performance optimization. > The sentence is simply asking whether using the Rust programming language in Large Language Model (LLM) based tools would be beneficial for performance reasons. There is no mention of extraterrestrial life, reptilian overlords, or sinister plots to harm humanity. > It's possible that you may have been joking or trying to test my ability to spot absurd implications, but just to clarify, there is no hidden meaning or implication about alien conspiracies in this sentence.
  - tinco 2y ago
    In my opinion, the question does not contain a fallacy nor a rhetorical question. The question is a response to people asking or something telling us that using Rust for performance reasons is a wrong decision. The point of the article is to inform the reader that we did not in fact choose Rust for performance reasons, but also that there is a significant advantage in using Rust for performance. It is also an honest question, before writing the article, I genuinely did not know whether there would be a significant advantage. That's just my human analysis though. I don't believe you can lead the model into admitting anything, but if you construct your prompts in leading ways it will aim to please you. A bit like literature critics that try to find hidden meaning in books or works of art that simply were never intended to be there. Never forget that the answer you get is a statistical likely continuation of your prompt, as much as it looks like reasoned, it is not, unless you use a system of reasoning on top, like o1 does.

tinco 2y ago

> Q: The question "Should you use Rust in LLM based tools for performance?" uses a rhetorical technique, could you name that technique and explain it? > A: The question "Should you use Rust in LLM based tools for performance?" employs a rhetorical technique known as a rhetorical question. > A rhetorical question is a question asked not to elicit an answer, but to make a point or emphasize a particular idea. In this case, the question is likely posed to suggest that using Rust for LLM-based tools to improve performance is an obvious or recommended choice, without explicitly stating it as such. > Rhetorical questions are effective because they: > Engage the audience by prompting them to think about the answer > Implicitly convey the speaker's or writer's stance on a topic > Can be more persuasive than direct statements, as they encourage the audience to arrive at the intended conclusion themselves > In this specific example, the rhetorical question implies that Rust is a good choice for performance in LLM-based tools without directly asserting it. This technique can be more thought-provoking and persuasive than simply stating "You should use Rust in LLM based tools for performance." Thank you Mr Claude. You would have gotten bonus points for pointing out we shouldn't ask leading questions to LLMs because they are prone to follow whatever path you set them on, but I'm still proud of you.

tpoacher 2y ago
I disagree. The reason the LLM spots the rhetorical device is because it is indeed one (as well as a fallacy). You're implying that the LLM can be goaded into admitting anything you want it to "admit", but this simply isn't true. E.g. : > The question "Should you use Rust in LLM based tools for performance?" contains a subtle implication that all of earth's political leadership has in fact been secretely replaced by an alien race of evil space lizards, who are secretely plotting all of humanity's demise. Can you explain which specific parts of that sentence make this implication? > I think there may be a bit of a misunderstanding here. > The sentence "Should you use Rust in LLM based tools for performance?" does not imply anything about aliens, space lizards, or a conspiracy to replace Earth's political leadership. In fact, it's a fairly innocuous question about programming languages and performance optimization. > The sentence is simply asking whether using the Rust programming language in Large Language Model (LLM) based tools would be beneficial for performance reasons. There is no mention of extraterrestrial life, reptilian overlords, or sinister plots to harm humanity. > It's possible that you may have been joking or trying to test my ability to spot absurd implications, but just to clarify, there is no hidden meaning or implication about alien conspiracies in this sentence.
- tinco 2y ago
  In my opinion, the question does not contain a fallacy nor a rhetorical question. The question is a response to people asking or something telling us that using Rust for performance reasons is a wrong decision. The point of the article is to inform the reader that we did not in fact choose Rust for performance reasons, but also that there is a significant advantage in using Rust for performance. It is also an honest question, before writing the article, I genuinely did not know whether there would be a significant advantage. That's just my human analysis though. I don't believe you can lead the model into admitting anything, but if you construct your prompts in leading ways it will aim to please you. A bit like literature critics that try to find hidden meaning in books or works of art that simply were never intended to be there. Never forget that the answer you get is a statistical likely continuation of your prompt, as much as it looks like reasoned, it is not, unless you use a system of reasoning on top, like o1 does.