5 ms·
I also don't mind that. Summarized information exchange feels very efficient. But for sure, it seems like a societal expectation is emerging around these tools
by SOLAR_FIELDS 7mo ago
I also don't mind that. Summarized information exchange feels very efficient. But for sure, it seems like a societal expectation is emerging around these tools right now - expect me to put as much effort into consuming data as you did producing it. If you shat out a bunch of data from an LLM, I'm going to use an LLM to consume that data as well. And it's not reasonable for you to expect me to manually parse that data, just as well as I wouldn't expect you to do the same.
However, since people are not going to readily reveal that they used an LLM to produce said output, it seems like the most logical way to do this is just always use an LLM to consume inputs, because there's no easy 100% way to tell whether it was created by an LLM or a human or not anymore.
- roland35 7mo agoA true prisoners dilemma!
- theshrike79 7mo agoConcept -> LLM fluff -> LLM summary -> Recipient This kinda risks the broken telephone problem, or when you translate from one language to another and then again to another - context and nuance is always lost. Just give me the bullet points, it's more efficient anyway. No need to add tons of adjectives and purple prose around it to fluff it up.
- duskdozer 7mo agoSome day someone brilliant will discover the idea of "sharing prompts" to get around this issue. So, instead of sending the clean and summarized LLM output, you'll just send your prompt, and then the recipient can read that, and in response, share their prompt back to the original sender.
- Arubis 7mo agoVenkat Rao's "Sloptraptions" essays (https://contraptions.venkateshrao.com/s/sloptraptions https://contraptions.venkateshrao.com/s/sloptraptions) are the version of this that isn't pithy. (https://contraptions.venkateshrao.com/p/to-know-is-to-stage https://contraptions.venkateshrao.com/p/to-know-is-to-stage is particularly good.)