2 ms·

> It always confuses me when I see shared chats with prompts and interactions that have proper capitalization, punctuation, grammar, etc. I've tried and fail t

by Arainach 10mo ago

> It always confuses me when I see shared chats with prompts and interactions that have proper capitalization, punctuation, grammar, etc. I've tried and fail to write this in a way that won't come across as snobbish but it is not the intent. It's a matter of standards. Using proper language is how I think. I'm incapable of doing otherwise even out of laziness. Pressing the shift key and the space bar to do it right costs me nothing. It's akin to shopping carts in parking lots. You won't be arrested or punished for not returning the shopping cart to where it belongs, you still get your groceries (the same results), but it's what you do in a civilized society and when I see someone not doing it that says things to me about who they are as a person.

mjr00 10mo ago
> It's a matter of standards. [...] when I see someone not doing it that says things to me about who they are as a person. When you're communicating with a person, sure. But the point is this isn't communicating with a person or other sentient being; it's a computer, which I guarantee is not offended by terseness and lack of capitalization. > It's akin to shopping carts in parking lots. No, not returning the shopping cart has a real consequence that negatively impacts a human being who has to do that task for you, same with littering etc. There is no consequence to using terse, non-punctuated, lowercase-only text when using an LLM. To put it another way: do you feel it's disrespectful to type "cat *.log | grep 'foo'" instead of "Dearest computer, would you kindly look at the contents of the files with the .log extension in this directory and find all instances of the word 'foo', please?" (Computer's most likely thoughts: "Doesn't this idiot meatbag know cat is redundant and you can just use grep for this?")*
- mbreese 10mo ago
  I’m not worried about the LLM getting offended if I don’t write complete sentences. I’m worried about not getting good results back. I haven’t tested this, and so I could be wrong, but I think a better formed/grammatically correct prompt may result in a better output. I want to say the LLM will understand what I want better, but it has no understanding per se, just a predictive response. Knowing this, I want to get the best response back. That’s why I try to have complete sentences and good (ish) grammar. When I start writing rushed commands back, I feel like I’m getting rushed responses back. I also tell the LLM “thank you, this looks great” when the code is working well. I’m not expressing my gratitude… I’m reinforcing to the model that this was a good response in a way it was trained to see as success. We don’t have good external mechanisms to give reviews to an LLM that isn’t based on language. Like most of the LLM space, these are just vibes, but it makes me feel better. But it has nothing to do with thinking the LLM is a person.
- alsetmusic 10mo ago
  I'm reminded of a coworker who spoke to his device with an upward inflection when asking a question. He sounded like he was talking to a human when he prompted, "what time is it?" I told him he could ask in a flat tone because it's a computer and it doesn't care if he's polite. I don't remember how he responded, but I've run into that conversation with someone at least once after him when I was accused of being rude to Alexa.
logicprog 10mo ago
This is exactly it for me as well. I also communicate with LLMs in full sentences because I often find it more difficult to condense my thoughts into grammatically incorrect conglomerations of words than to just write my thoughts out in full, because it's closer to how I think them — usually in something like the mental form of full sentences. Moreover, the slight extra occasional effort needed to structure what I'm trying to express into relatively good grammar — especially proper sentences, clauses and subclauses, using correct conjunctions, etc — often helps me subconsciously clarify and organize my thinking just by the mechanism of generating that grammar at all with barely any added effort on my part. I think also, if you're expressing more complex, specific, and detailed ideas to an LLM, random assortments of keywords often get unwieldy, confusing, and unclear, whereas properly grammatical sentences can hold more "weight," so to speak.
- klibertp 10mo ago
  Arainach: > Using proper language is how I think. logicprog: > because it's closer to how I think them — usually in something like the mental form of full sentences Yeah, I'm the same. However, I'm also very aware that not everyone thinks like that. I'm sensitive to sounds, and most of my thinking has to be vocalized (in the background) to make sense to me. It's incredibly hard for me to read non-Latin scripts, for example, because even if I learned the alphabet, I don't recognize the word easily before piecing together all the letter clusters that need to be spoken specially. (I especially hate the thing in Russian where "o" is either "o" or "a" depending on how many of those are in the word. It slows my reading of Cyrillic script down to a crawl.) Many people - probably most of them, even - don't need that. Those who think in pictures, for example, have it much easier to solve Sudoku or read foreign scripts. They don't need that much linguistic baggage to think. At the same time, when they write, they often struggle to form coherent sentences above a certain length, because they have to encode their thought process (that can be parallel and 3D) into a 1D sequence of tokens. I don't know whether this distinction between types of thinking has any scientific basis - I'm using it as a crutch to explain some observable phenomena in human-to-human communication. I think I picked up the notion from some pseudo-scientific books I read as a teen (I was fascinated by "neuro-linguistic programming," which tends to list three distinct types of thinking: visual, auditory, and kinesthetic). It unexpectedly finds applications in human-computer interfaces, too, but LLMs have made it even easier to notice. While "the three NLP modalities" can well be bullshit, there seems to be something that differs between people, and that's where threads like this one seem to come from.

mjr00 10mo ago

> It's a matter of standards. [...] when I see someone not doing it that says things to me about who they are as a person. When you're communicating with a person, sure. But the point is this isn't communicating with a person or other sentient being; it's a computer, which I guarantee is not offended by terseness and lack of capitalization. > It's akin to shopping carts in parking lots. No, not returning the shopping cart has a real consequence that negatively impacts a human being who has to do that task for you, same with littering etc. There is no consequence to using terse, non-punctuated, lowercase-only text when using an LLM. To put it another way: do you feel it's disrespectful to type "cat *.log | grep 'foo'" instead of "Dearest computer, would you kindly look at the contents of the files with the .log extension in this directory and find all instances of the word 'foo', please?" (Computer's most likely thoughts: "Doesn't this idiot meatbag know cat is redundant and you can just use grep for this?")*

mbreese 10mo ago
I’m not worried about the LLM getting offended if I don’t write complete sentences. I’m worried about not getting good results back. I haven’t tested this, and so I could be wrong, but I think a better formed/grammatically correct prompt may result in a better output. I want to say the LLM will understand what I want better, but it has no understanding per se, just a predictive response. Knowing this, I want to get the best response back. That’s why I try to have complete sentences and good (ish) grammar. When I start writing rushed commands back, I feel like I’m getting rushed responses back. I also tell the LLM “thank you, this looks great” when the code is working well. I’m not expressing my gratitude… I’m reinforcing to the model that this was a good response in a way it was trained to see as success. We don’t have good external mechanisms to give reviews to an LLM that isn’t based on language. Like most of the LLM space, these are just vibes, but it makes me feel better. But it has nothing to do with thinking the LLM is a person.
alsetmusic 10mo ago
I'm reminded of a coworker who spoke to his device with an upward inflection when asking a question. He sounded like he was talking to a human when he prompted, "what time is it?" I told him he could ask in a flat tone because it's a computer and it doesn't care if he's polite. I don't remember how he responded, but I've run into that conversation with someone at least once after him when I was accused of being rude to Alexa.

logicprog 10mo ago

This is exactly it for me as well. I also communicate with LLMs in full sentences because I often find it more difficult to condense my thoughts into grammatically incorrect conglomerations of words than to just write my thoughts out in full, because it's closer to how I think them — usually in something like the mental form of full sentences. Moreover, the slight extra occasional effort needed to structure what I'm trying to express into relatively good grammar — especially proper sentences, clauses and subclauses, using correct conjunctions, etc — often helps me subconsciously clarify and organize my thinking just by the mechanism of generating that grammar at all with barely any added effort on my part. I think also, if you're expressing more complex, specific, and detailed ideas to an LLM, random assortments of keywords often get unwieldy, confusing, and unclear, whereas properly grammatical sentences can hold more "weight," so to speak.

klibertp 10mo ago
Arainach: > Using proper language is how I think. logicprog: > because it's closer to how I think them — usually in something like the mental form of full sentences Yeah, I'm the same. However, I'm also very aware that not everyone thinks like that. I'm sensitive to sounds, and most of my thinking has to be vocalized (in the background) to make sense to me. It's incredibly hard for me to read non-Latin scripts, for example, because even if I learned the alphabet, I don't recognize the word easily before piecing together all the letter clusters that need to be spoken specially. (I especially hate the thing in Russian where "o" is either "o" or "a" depending on how many of those are in the word. It slows my reading of Cyrillic script down to a crawl.) Many people - probably most of them, even - don't need that. Those who think in pictures, for example, have it much easier to solve Sudoku or read foreign scripts. They don't need that much linguistic baggage to think. At the same time, when they write, they often struggle to form coherent sentences above a certain length, because they have to encode their thought process (that can be parallel and 3D) into a 1D sequence of tokens. I don't know whether this distinction between types of thinking has any scientific basis - I'm using it as a crutch to explain some observable phenomena in human-to-human communication. I think I picked up the notion from some pseudo-scientific books I read as a teen (I was fascinated by "neuro-linguistic programming," which tends to list three distinct types of thinking: visual, auditory, and kinesthetic). It unexpectedly finds applications in human-computer interfaces, too, but LLMs have made it even easier to notice. While "the three NLP modalities" can well be bullshit, there seems to be something that differs between people, and that's where threads like this one seem to come from.