3 ms·
> ...tips for using the model: > Avoid generic brevity instructions: GPT-5.6 is more sensitive than GPT-5.5 to instructions such as “Be concise,” “Keep it shor
by zahlman 4mo ago
> ...tips for using the model:
> Avoid generic brevity instructions: GPT-5.6 is more sensitive than GPT-5.5 to instructions such as “Be concise,” “Keep it short,” or “Use minimal text.”
I don't follow. Isn't "the model actually cares and will do what you say" a reason to use those kinds of instructions more liberally?
- greggsy 4mo agoI think they’re saying it’s irrelevant now, possibly because it’s less likely to trail off on meandering thought bubbles.
- cwillu 4mo agoThat would be contrary to a plain reading of the quote
- kinnth 4mo agoDoes anyone else feel each model is like watching your kids grow up. They we're bubbly and fun and weird, you needed to tell them to sit down and be quiet. Now if you tell them too much they go mute or stop telling you important information. Oh intelligence!
- le-mark 4mo agoNot at all. Anthropomorphizing them is not productive or desirable imo.
- CuriouslyC 4mo agoDisagree. Some of what we call "anthropomorphizing" is characterizing intelligence, human or otherwise. This reminds me of the people who used to fight against saying animals had personalities, because personalities are a "human thing" and "animals aren't conscious."
- zahlman 4mo agoI've never heard of the argument you're describing. People simply don't assert that animals lack consciousness; beyond a certain level at least, their consciousness is obvious. (Sapience, for example, is another matter.) But this is exactly why we should not anthropomorphize the models: they are very obviously not conscious, because they are not alive, any more than conventional computer programs are. And proposing otherwise leads to absurd moral arguments, while not really serving any other purpose. If you don't like the fact that some people disagree with you about what the word "intelligence" actually means, fine. But I am not about to entertain a world in which humans face moral retribution for "enslaving" a literal inanimate tool created by humanity.
- CuriouslyC 4mo agoRenee Descartes famously dissected a dog in front of colleagues because he was under the impression that the howls of pain were nothing more than a mechanical sound like a bellows. Can you prove that these models aren't conscious? And, as a counterpoint, can you prove that you are conscious, rather than a philosophical zombie? We bred horses, cows and sheep. Most of those that live today wouldn't be alive if not for human intervention. Does that give us the right to do whatever we want with them, without consideration for feeling or morality? In this case, you can take comfort in the idea that the tokens these models produce are likely a form of excrement to the conscious entity metabolizing the information, and rather than enslaving anything, we're creating a habitat and "harvesting" the byproducts.
- jtfrench 4mo agoYeah, don’t do that.
- rrvsh 4mo agoClick through to the link - it states that the model tends to over correct on brevity instructions by omitting required information