3 ms·

I don't have a problem with the suggestions. Google search does the same at the end of searches. It does very often suggest things I want to know more about.

fhub 8mo ago
Then just write the extra paragraph rather than bait?
- IMTDb 8mo ago
  Bait what exactly ? Getting the user to type "yes" ? Great accomplishment. Sometimes I want the extra paragraph, sometimes I don't. Sometimes I like the suggested follow up, sometimes I don't. Sometimes I have half an hour in front of me to keep digging into a subject, sometimes I don't. Why should the LLM "just write the extra paragraph" (consuming electricity in the process) to a potential follow up question a user might, or might not, have ? If I write a simple question I hope to get a simple answer, not a whole essay answering stuff I did not explicitly ask for. And If I want to go deeper, typing 3 letters is not exactly a huge cost.
  - knollimar 8mo ago
    You send all the tokens an extra time at least
    - alex43578 8mo ago
      I’m not privy to their data on what this does to engagement, but intuitively it seems like the extra inference/token cost this incurs doesn’t align with their current model. If they were doing it to API customers, sure, but getting the free or flat-rate customers to use more tokens seems counterproductive.
      - zdragnar 8mo ago
        It juices their "engagement" metrics, which is the drug of choice for investors, right up there with net promoter scores.
        alex43578 8mo ago
        We’ll see how this plays out. It’s a turbocharged version of enshittification, at a time when other models are showing stronger growth in B2B and other valuable markets. I canceled my ChatGPT subscription and jumped to Claude, not for silly political theater, but just because the product was better for professional use. Looking at data from Ramp and others, I’m not alone.
sonink 8mo ago
Suggestions are absolutely fine. But this is baiting. Chatgpt could have easily given me that information without the bait. And I would have happily consumed it. And maybe if it did it once, it was fine - but it kept on doing it - bait after bait after bait. The objective was to increase the engagement "metrics" clearly. The seems to me as if the leadership will take all 'shortcuts' required for growth.
- llm_nerd 8mo ago
  This seems overly cynical. Firstly, tl;dr; is a very real thing. If the user asks a question and the LLM both answers the question but then writes an essay about every probable subsequent question, that would be negatively overwhelming to most people, and few would think that's a good idea. That isn't how a conversation works, either. Worse still if you're on a usage quota or are paying by token and you ask a simple question and it gives you volumes of unasked information, most people would be very cynical about that, noting that they're trying to saturate usage unprompted. Gemini often does the "Would you like to know more about {XYZ}" end to a response, and as an adult capable of making decisions and controlling my urges, 9 times out of 10 I just ignore it and move on having had my original question satisfied without digging deeper. I don't see the big issue here. Every now and then it piques me, though, and I actually find it beneficial. The prompts for possible/probable follow-up lines of inquiry are a non-issue, and I see no issue at all with them. They are nothing compared to the user-glazing that these LLMs do.
  - deleted 8mo ago
    [deleted]
  - markers 8mo ago
    Have you used ChatGPT lately? What you describe is not quite what they are doing, they are adding nudges at the end of the follow-up question suggestions. For instance I was researching some IKEA furniture and it gives suggestions for followup, with nudges in parenthesis "IKEA-furniture many people use for this (very cool solution)" and at the end of another question suggestion: "(very simple, but surprisingly effective)". They are subtle cliffhangers trying to influence you to go on, not pure suggestions. I'm just waiting for the "(You wouldn't believe that this did!)". It has soured me on the service, Claude has a much better personality imo.

fhub 8mo ago

Then just write the extra paragraph rather than bait?

IMTDb 8mo ago
Bait what exactly ? Getting the user to type "yes" ? Great accomplishment. Sometimes I want the extra paragraph, sometimes I don't. Sometimes I like the suggested follow up, sometimes I don't. Sometimes I have half an hour in front of me to keep digging into a subject, sometimes I don't. Why should the LLM "just write the extra paragraph" (consuming electricity in the process) to a potential follow up question a user might, or might not, have ? If I write a simple question I hope to get a simple answer, not a whole essay answering stuff I did not explicitly ask for. And If I want to go deeper, typing 3 letters is not exactly a huge cost.
- knollimar 8mo ago
  You send all the tokens an extra time at least
  - alex43578 8mo ago
    I’m not privy to their data on what this does to engagement, but intuitively it seems like the extra inference/token cost this incurs doesn’t align with their current model. If they were doing it to API customers, sure, but getting the free or flat-rate customers to use more tokens seems counterproductive.
    - zdragnar 8mo ago
      It juices their "engagement" metrics, which is the drug of choice for investors, right up there with net promoter scores.
      - alex43578 8mo ago
        We’ll see how this plays out. It’s a turbocharged version of enshittification, at a time when other models are showing stronger growth in B2B and other valuable markets. I canceled my ChatGPT subscription and jumped to Claude, not for silly political theater, but just because the product was better for professional use. Looking at data from Ramp and others, I’m not alone.

sonink 8mo ago

Suggestions are absolutely fine. But this is baiting. Chatgpt could have easily given me that information without the bait. And I would have happily consumed it. And maybe if it did it once, it was fine - but it kept on doing it - bait after bait after bait. The objective was to increase the engagement "metrics" clearly. The seems to me as if the leadership will take all 'shortcuts' required for growth.

llm_nerd 8mo ago
This seems overly cynical. Firstly, tl;dr; is a very real thing. If the user asks a question and the LLM both answers the question but then writes an essay about every probable subsequent question, that would be negatively overwhelming to most people, and few would think that's a good idea. That isn't how a conversation works, either. Worse still if you're on a usage quota or are paying by token and you ask a simple question and it gives you volumes of unasked information, most people would be very cynical about that, noting that they're trying to saturate usage unprompted. Gemini often does the "Would you like to know more about {XYZ}" end to a response, and as an adult capable of making decisions and controlling my urges, 9 times out of 10 I just ignore it and move on having had my original question satisfied without digging deeper. I don't see the big issue here. Every now and then it piques me, though, and I actually find it beneficial. The prompts for possible/probable follow-up lines of inquiry are a non-issue, and I see no issue at all with them. They are nothing compared to the user-glazing that these LLMs do.
- deleted 8mo ago
  [deleted]
- markers 8mo ago
  Have you used ChatGPT lately? What you describe is not quite what they are doing, they are adding nudges at the end of the follow-up question suggestions. For instance I was researching some IKEA furniture and it gives suggestions for followup, with nudges in parenthesis "IKEA-furniture many people use for this (very cool solution)" and at the end of another question suggestion: "(very simple, but surprisingly effective)". They are subtle cliffhangers trying to influence you to go on, not pure suggestions. I'm just waiting for the "(You wouldn't believe that this did!)". It has soured me on the service, Claude has a much better personality imo.