4 ms·

yep matches my experience completely But even fable has the annoying tendency to invent new jargon and produce an incomprehensible soup of text.

by msp26 2mo ago

cromka 2mo ago
Is there any model that knows how to smooth an overly literary text over? I find Opus and Fable constantly decorate the documentation they write like a damn 19/20th century writer. We're working with IT stuff yet it writes like it's going to win some Pulitzer prize. It's that one thing I don't get why they can't train them to do properly: I have not encountered a model yet that sticks to the current language of the domain it's tasked with.
- msp26 2mo ago
  Not sure how to fully fix this but I remember a session last week where I got so fed up mid way though reading a response that I used the following: "give me this again without jargon invented this session at high density and with a couple (maybe more or less) simple useful ascii diagrams underneath each design" The context is that I was discussing an experimental new idea for my video game review analysis product. Designs 1,2, and 3 were horrible: the model even suggested a rejection after the word soup so it would have been pointless to waste my fleeting time on Earth reading it. Otherwise, I generally really enjoyed using fable for bouncing ideas. It was an absolute joy to have this thing provide useful criticism, analyse sample data, and create prototypes so that I could elevate my understanding of the problem without stepping down from a pure intuition/design headspace. But I don't consider the purely model written code usable for a feature this important. I'll probably scrap it entirely and start from scratch with newfound understanding.
  - moffkalast 2mo ago
    I've just seen it write this, I'm still laughing/crying: > Monitor clipping. review_watched produces PathStatus and nothing else. It never feeds solve. Whatever it does to legs cannot reach the search. (that's after being told twice to not use shorthand jargon nor reference the code directly)

yep matches my experience completely But even fable has the annoying tendency to invent new jargon and produce an incomprehensible soup of text.

by msp26 2mo ago

yep matches my experience completely But even fable has the annoying tendency to invent new jargon and produce an incomprehensible soup of text.

cromka 2mo ago

Is there any model that knows how to smooth an overly literary text over? I find Opus and Fable constantly decorate the documentation they write like a damn 19/20th century writer. We're working with IT stuff yet it writes like it's going to win some Pulitzer prize. It's that one thing I don't get why they can't train them to do properly: I have not encountered a model yet that sticks to the current language of the domain it's tasked with.

msp26 2mo ago
Not sure how to fully fix this but I remember a session last week where I got so fed up mid way though reading a response that I used the following: "give me this again without jargon invented this session at high density and with a couple (maybe more or less) simple useful ascii diagrams underneath each design" The context is that I was discussing an experimental new idea for my video game review analysis product. Designs 1,2, and 3 were horrible: the model even suggested a rejection after the word soup so it would have been pointless to waste my fleeting time on Earth reading it. Otherwise, I generally really enjoyed using fable for bouncing ideas. It was an absolute joy to have this thing provide useful criticism, analyse sample data, and create prototypes so that I could elevate my understanding of the problem without stepping down from a pure intuition/design headspace. But I don't consider the purely model written code usable for a feature this important. I'll probably scrap it entirely and start from scratch with newfound understanding.
- moffkalast 2mo ago
  I've just seen it write this, I'm still laughing/crying: > Monitor clipping. review_watched produces PathStatus and nothing else. It never feeds solve. Whatever it does to legs cannot reach the search. (that's after being told twice to not use shorthand jargon nor reference the code directly)