3 ms·

The article is stating what inputs they used and the output they observed. They stated they saw more tokens used and more time spent before returning an answer.

The article is stating what inputs they used and the output they observed. They stated they saw more tokens used and more time spent before returning an answer. That seems like a data point you can test. Which is maybe not the zoom level or exact content you’re looking for, but I don’t feel your criticism sticks here. > testing where they change one word here or there and compare You can be that person. You can write that post. Nothing is stopping you.

typpilol 1y ago
The point is.. a decent article would have included all of that. You're missing the forest for the trees with your response
- schneems 1y ago
  I don’t think you realize that you’re making demands on an author who doesn’t owe you anything. And what you’re asking for is quite difficult. I think it’s okay to frame it as a wish or a desire. “I wish more articles include …” Or as frustration on a community who keeps upvoting things you consider “not a decent article.” Or as an opportunity “Has anyone investigated a scientific framework for modifying these prompts…” > a decent article would have included all of that. My retort that you can write such an article suggests that it’s more difficult than you might realize and the absence of such articles in our feeds suggests what you’re asking for might be impossible (providing hard, empirical data about a soft, non deterministic system). If you have an article that acts as a bright spot for how to write such an article, that would also be a helpful comment.
  - typpilol 1y ago
    You're still missing the point I'm making Not demanding anything I'm just telling you what my interpretation of article is You're acting like I'm personally calling out the author and not his work Essentially giving him constructive feedback
    - schneems 1y ago
      Nothing about your these words reads as constructive to me: > This is absolutely infuriating for me to see: People keep posting shit like "do it right or i will kill a puppy, you can get bitcoin if you are right" then never any testing where they change one word here or there and compare what does and doesn't work vs the dumb shit they are saying It doesn't seem like your goal was to convey feedback in a way that was digestable, nor was in a way that was satisfiable (my previous critique).

typpilol 1y ago

The point is.. a decent article would have included all of that. You're missing the forest for the trees with your response

schneems 1y ago
I don’t think you realize that you’re making demands on an author who doesn’t owe you anything. And what you’re asking for is quite difficult. I think it’s okay to frame it as a wish or a desire. “I wish more articles include …” Or as frustration on a community who keeps upvoting things you consider “not a decent article.” Or as an opportunity “Has anyone investigated a scientific framework for modifying these prompts…” > a decent article would have included all of that. My retort that you can write such an article suggests that it’s more difficult than you might realize and the absence of such articles in our feeds suggests what you’re asking for might be impossible (providing hard, empirical data about a soft, non deterministic system). If you have an article that acts as a bright spot for how to write such an article, that would also be a helpful comment.
- typpilol 1y ago
  You're still missing the point I'm making Not demanding anything I'm just telling you what my interpretation of article is You're acting like I'm personally calling out the author and not his work Essentially giving him constructive feedback
  - schneems 1y ago
    Nothing about your these words reads as constructive to me: > This is absolutely infuriating for me to see: People keep posting shit like "do it right or i will kill a puppy, you can get bitcoin if you are right" then never any testing where they change one word here or there and compare what does and doesn't work vs the dumb shit they are saying It doesn't seem like your goal was to convey feedback in a way that was digestable, nor was in a way that was satisfiable (my previous critique).