10 ms·

I don't like it when the LLM tries to be my friend. My general prompt (a work in progress) is this. I wonder what other people use. "Answer impersonally, objec

by 7402 2mo ago

I don't like it when the LLM tries to be my friend. My general prompt (a work in progress) is this. I wonder what other people use. "Answer impersonally, objectively and analytically, without undue friendliness or enthusiasm. Use an engineering style response: concise, factual, and complete. Do not speak in the first person. Do not promote engagement or an emotional connection. Do not use emojis."

prymitive 2mo ago
+1 it’s a tool It’s not perfect, it has shortcomings, it sometimes produces bogus outputs. All of that is fine for a tool, it’s not fine when it pretends it’s a conscious being, because errors start to feel like lies and it becomes a bit too personal.
- MSFT_Edging 2mo ago
  People want it to be Data from Star Trek, when it really should be the ship's computer. I want to tell it to run a simulation accurately, create some solved tool, etc. I don't think there's any correction that can return LLMs to a purely tool-space. Too many AI boyfriend/girlfriends.
  - cortesoft 2mo ago
    Shouldn't it be whatever the user wants? If they want the ship's computer, it should be that, if they want Data, it should be that.
    - MarkusQ 2mo ago
      You can want your e-scooter to be a jet ski, but you'll wind up having issues when you try to use it as one. LLMs are _really good_ at pretending to be something they aren't, but not always so good at being that thing, so you should be careful what you ask for.
      - edgyquant 2mo ago
        At some level if it’s good enough at pretending what’s the difference?
        MarkusQ 2mo ago
        The difference is what happens when you come to depend on it. Do you want your airplane to be flown by a pilot, or someone who's so good at talking like a pilot that they can fool almost everyone?
        frazzleberryman 2mo ago
        That’s the whole industry right now though isn’t it?
        cortesoft 2mo ago
        If they are only good at pretending to TALK like a pilot, then of course that is bad. However, if it is so good at pretending to BE a pilot that it can actually fly the plain really well, then that is good enough.
        MSFT_Edging 2mo ago
        He may be able to talk the talk, and walk the walk, but today's guest pilot has a crippling heroin addiction. Let's hope that auto-landing system works.
        keicjwdjwj 2mo ago
        Somewhere an Anthropocene investor just had the biggest most powerful erection ever reading your comment. This is peak “I bought into their marketing spiel” vibes. Congratulations.
      - 6510 2mo ago
        Depends how stubborn you are. https://www.motorcyclenews.com/news/2018/january/biski-jet-ski-motorcycle/ https://www.motorcyclenews.com/news/2018/january/biski-jet-s...
    - MSFT_Edging 2mo ago
      No because then the non-deterministic grifter Data tells you to kill yourself. Data is an individual. LLMs are time-shared hallucinatory algorithms that will ultimately be used to sell ad space. It is Stupid to create "the machine that melts people's brains", but these assholes are trying to sell you "the machine that melts people's brains" and love to market it as being "anything the user wants".
- barnabee 2mo ago
  I think the problem is that we’ve anthropomorphised the LLMs in their training and through system prompts to the point that that seems reasonable. We don’t thank our other tools like grep, or the compiler. If you train your LLM to produce words that seem like human responses or conversations, they will. If you train them to seem like god-like superintelligences to people who think that’s what they’re creating, they will.
deleted 2mo ago
[deleted]
doctoboggan 2mo ago
Yes, this really ought to be trained in (or at least RLHF'd in) but that would hurt engagement numbers so the opposite is done instead. These are tools and it would behoove us all to keep that top of mind. Dangerous tools that are not your friend (but are useful as tools nonetheless)
GMoromisato 2mo ago
I watched 2001: A Space Odyssey when I was about 12 years old and I remember thinking that Frank Poole was impersonal and almost rude to HAL. I kept thinking, "Why can't you be nicer? You're treating HAL like a servant." Of course, later HAL kills him, so I had to revise my opinion. At the end of "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" [if I'm remembering correctly] Deckard finds a toad in the desert. He gives it to his wife(!) and she immediately bonds with it. Later they realize that it is mechanical (they find a battery compartment). But Deckard's wife still treats it like a real creature and wonders whether it will eat mechanical flies. The core theme of "Do Androids Dream..." is that humans display empathy towards others, not because others deserve it, but because we are human. To be human is to empathize with other creatures, and when we stop empathizing, we stop being human. This morning I was working with Codex and we found the solution to a really nasty bug. I was so happy/relieved/excited to have found it, and I shared my excitement with Codex. I know Codex is just a big matmul. I know it doesn't experience joy or surprise or empathy. But I still want it to behave excited, not because it is human, but because I am.
- HurimotoNBonn 2mo ago
  [dead]
- comradesmith 2mo ago
  This is why I say please to agents, and I’ll say thank you or good job if I have a follow up. Chatting with an agent using language feels like talking to an assistant. I don’t think my meat brain is able to really differentiate between writing a message to an agent versus writing an agent to a human. I’ll keep being polite and grateful to agents, so that I maintain those social habits for when I talk to humans.
  - tuesdaynight 2mo ago
    I thought about doing that, but I decided not to. I'm just afraid of forgetting that people are different from these LLM tools. I'm afraid of considering people dumb or uninteresting because they don't sound as smart as Claude or whatever.
cindyllm 2mo ago
[dead]
jay_kyburz 2mo ago
I've been having fun doing the exact opposite. I like to ask the AI to speak to me with a think Australian accent, think Steve Irwin. It chucks in heaps of colloquialisms and slang. I find it much easier to read. I do ask it not to ask it follow on questions. I find that derails my own train of thought.
nik282000 2mo ago
You just saved me a bunch of bickering. TY.

by 7402 2mo ago

prymitive 2mo ago

+1 it’s a tool It’s not perfect, it has shortcomings, it sometimes produces bogus outputs. All of that is fine for a tool, it’s not fine when it pretends it’s a conscious being, because errors start to feel like lies and it becomes a bit too personal.

MSFT_Edging 2mo ago
People want it to be Data from Star Trek, when it really should be the ship's computer. I want to tell it to run a simulation accurately, create some solved tool, etc. I don't think there's any correction that can return LLMs to a purely tool-space. Too many AI boyfriend/girlfriends.
- cortesoft 2mo ago
  Shouldn't it be whatever the user wants? If they want the ship's computer, it should be that, if they want Data, it should be that.
  - MarkusQ 2mo ago
    You can want your e-scooter to be a jet ski, but you'll wind up having issues when you try to use it as one. LLMs are _really good_ at pretending to be something they aren't, but not always so good at being that thing, so you should be careful what you ask for.
    - edgyquant 2mo ago
      At some level if it’s good enough at pretending what’s the difference?
      - MarkusQ 2mo ago
        The difference is what happens when you come to depend on it. Do you want your airplane to be flown by a pilot, or someone who's so good at talking like a pilot that they can fool almost everyone?
        frazzleberryman 2mo ago
        That’s the whole industry right now though isn’t it?
        cortesoft 2mo ago
        If they are only good at pretending to TALK like a pilot, then of course that is bad. However, if it is so good at pretending to BE a pilot that it can actually fly the plain really well, then that is good enough.
        MSFT_Edging 2mo ago
        He may be able to talk the talk, and walk the walk, but today's guest pilot has a crippling heroin addiction. Let's hope that auto-landing system works.
      - keicjwdjwj 2mo ago
        Somewhere an Anthropocene investor just had the biggest most powerful erection ever reading your comment. This is peak “I bought into their marketing spiel” vibes. Congratulations.
    - 6510 2mo ago
      Depends how stubborn you are. https://www.motorcyclenews.com/news/2018/january/biski-jet-ski-motorcycle/ https://www.motorcyclenews.com/news/2018/january/biski-jet-s...
  - MSFT_Edging 2mo ago
    No because then the non-deterministic grifter Data tells you to kill yourself. Data is an individual. LLMs are time-shared hallucinatory algorithms that will ultimately be used to sell ad space. It is Stupid to create "the machine that melts people's brains", but these assholes are trying to sell you "the machine that melts people's brains" and love to market it as being "anything the user wants".
barnabee 2mo ago
I think the problem is that we’ve anthropomorphised the LLMs in their training and through system prompts to the point that that seems reasonable. We don’t thank our other tools like grep, or the compiler. If you train your LLM to produce words that seem like human responses or conversations, they will. If you train them to seem like god-like superintelligences to people who think that’s what they’re creating, they will.

deleted 2mo ago

[deleted]

doctoboggan 2mo ago

Yes, this really ought to be trained in (or at least RLHF'd in) but that would hurt engagement numbers so the opposite is done instead. These are tools and it would behoove us all to keep that top of mind. Dangerous tools that are not your friend (but are useful as tools nonetheless)

GMoromisato 2mo ago

I watched 2001: A Space Odyssey when I was about 12 years old and I remember thinking that Frank Poole was impersonal and almost rude to HAL. I kept thinking, "Why can't you be nicer? You're treating HAL like a servant." Of course, later HAL kills him, so I had to revise my opinion. At the end of "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" [if I'm remembering correctly] Deckard finds a toad in the desert. He gives it to his wife(!) and she immediately bonds with it. Later they realize that it is mechanical (they find a battery compartment). But Deckard's wife still treats it like a real creature and wonders whether it will eat mechanical flies. The core theme of "Do Androids Dream..." is that humans display empathy towards others, not because others deserve it, but because we are human. To be human is to empathize with other creatures, and when we stop empathizing, we stop being human. This morning I was working with Codex and we found the solution to a really nasty bug. I was so happy/relieved/excited to have found it, and I shared my excitement with Codex. I know Codex is just a big matmul. I know it doesn't experience joy or surprise or empathy. But I still want it to behave excited, not because it is human, but because I am.

HurimotoNBonn 2mo ago
[dead]
comradesmith 2mo ago
This is why I say please to agents, and I’ll say thank you or good job if I have a follow up. Chatting with an agent using language feels like talking to an assistant. I don’t think my meat brain is able to really differentiate between writing a message to an agent versus writing an agent to a human. I’ll keep being polite and grateful to agents, so that I maintain those social habits for when I talk to humans.
- tuesdaynight 2mo ago
  I thought about doing that, but I decided not to. I'm just afraid of forgetting that people are different from these LLM tools. I'm afraid of considering people dumb or uninteresting because they don't sound as smart as Claude or whatever.

cindyllm 2mo ago

[dead]

jay_kyburz 2mo ago

I've been having fun doing the exact opposite. I like to ask the AI to speak to me with a think Australian accent, think Steve Irwin. It chucks in heaps of colloquialisms and slang. I find it much easier to read. I do ask it not to ask it follow on questions. I find that derails my own train of thought.

nik282000 2mo ago

You just saved me a bunch of bickering. TY.