5 ms·

I really like the point I read somewhere the other day; instead of sending me the AI output, just send me the prompt you used to generate it. That is the only p

I really like the point I read somewhere the other day; instead of sending me the AI output, just send me the prompt you used to generate it. That is the only part that contains only the information you are trying to convey. The rest is just guesses flowery language added, and it confuses the actual message being sent.

paulpauper 2mo ago
Many people use many prompts and revisions or prompts or combinations or human and AI writing. Its not a simple as just making a single prompt and copying the output as the blog post.
- rsalus 2mo ago
  Yeah, by the time my thought is fully formed I've gone through an entire conversation.
- pelotron 2mo ago
  They could prompt the AI to scroll up and copy their previous prompts for them.
snmx999 2mo ago
Not all AI content was created with one prompt.
onion2k 2mo ago
That implies you think the output of an LLM is only a rewording of the prompt, and that it doesn't add anything from it's corpus of training data. That's obviously untrue.
- Alpha3031 2mo ago
  I'm in the "post both and let your readers figure out which, if any, they prefer" camp but even if you didn't (and unless you were using one of those super special models that can't be released according to the companies) I would hope that any literate adult that thought it valuable would be capable of consulting something with comparable knowledge and experience. Of course, given that posting one is not mutually exclusive with posting the other, I would still think that posting both is the easiest way to satisfy both people who prefer to read the prompt and those who prefer the read the output.
- andriamanitra 2mo ago
  Even when LLMs add something it's a better idea to let the readers use LLMs to augment content. They have the best knowledge of their own background and what they're looking for. Sharing information that is already in the corpus is simply not that valuable in a world where everyone has access to their own LLMs.
iwontberude 2mo ago
[dead]
m132 2mo ago
I like how some people take offence at that
- fallingbananna 2mo ago
  I don't like it. I don't take any offence. It just triggers the same AI;DR for me. If I think the task requires a human to think about it. And the person is the human paid to think about it. Whether I get a wall of AI text, prompt, or an entire AI conversation... there is no human insight in it. If that person took the time to think about the problem, had a chat with the AI, and understood the output, surely they can take the final step and tell me the short result/summary themselves, right? --- However, if I had to choose lesser evil, I would of course prefer to have a link to the AI conversation over having a wall of text directly in the conversation.
supermatt 2mo ago
How is this? https://claude.ai/share/99bfee0f-bab9-4593-aabb-377e71f1151d https://claude.ai/share/99bfee0f-bab9-4593-aabb-377e71f1151d
- miyoji 2mo ago
  Yes, the original prompt is 10000% better than the AI output, because it shows me exactly how much the author (you?) cares about this topic and how much effort they're willing to put into communication, which is barely any at all.
  - supermatt 2mo ago
    > which is barely any at all Clearly you either didn't read it, misunderstood it, disbelieved it, or just DGAF :)
    - swatcoder 2mo ago
      What I read is that you're self-conscious about your writing style and that you find the LLM processed version of your own stream of thoughts to be helpful to you yourself. Which is fine for you, but doesn't change that many people can get more insight out of your original text than they can out of the generated adaptation, and can do so with more interest and less fatigue. And indeed, you don't have to care about that. But one would think that in publishing or sharing your writing at all, you do in fact have some investment in whether people receive those insights that you have. Otherwise, you could just keep the AI writings to yourself in the first place.
      - shimman 2mo ago
        These people need therapy not chatgpt subs.
    - minimaxir 2mo ago
      Many different people in this HN submission have given you similar feedback: given that, you should consider that your priors are not correct.
jampa 2mo ago
I used to do that, but the person could be bad at prompting too (which is often why the LLM couldn't give a good answer in the first place). So the polite version I use now is: "Hey, just to get a bit more context, what was the original problem you were trying to solve?". That gets them to distill their own problem a bit further.
raincole 2mo ago
The prompt is the whole chat history. It would be like 10~20 times longer than the final output if the author gave the slightest amount of shit.
- Alpha3031 2mo ago
  The author giving the slightest amount of shit seems like a big assumption to make, but ultimately even it that were the case I don't see why I would prefer what I read to be curated in that specific manner (having access only to what has been filtered past some black box). As opposed to being able to choose what to read from the whole chat history.
imadeanaccountj 2mo ago
[dead]
coderatlarge 2mo ago
i personally prompt to produce a baseline then re-prompt to tweak then re-re-prompt to re-order, then re-re-re-prompt to expand certain parts, then re-re-re-reprompt to properly cross reference internally , then re-re-re-re-reprompt to proof read and add missing references . so there is no single prompt that produced the document and if i were to start from scratch the path would likely be different.
hinkley 2mo ago
Somewhere in that wall of text is a single statement that might sink the entire project...
CuriouslyC 2mo ago
Would you prefer a 10k word discussion with an agent about a hypothesis with back and forth over data sources and such, analysis, etc, or a 2000 word AI essay condensate with the rough edges smoothed over manually?
- prmoustache 2mo ago
  It really depends if the rough edges are load bearing.
globular-toast 2mo ago
Yeah, my post is more than a year old at this point: https://blog.gpkb.org/posts/just-send-me-the-prompt/ https://blog.gpkb.org/posts/just-send-me-the-prompt/ A lot of people replying seem to be misunderstanding, though. The only point of human-to-human communication is to transmit thoughts from one brain to another. If you simply send me stuff from AI then I don't need you. I want to hear your thoughts. If you don't have any, then I don't need or want to hear from you. Your thoughts are entirely contained within your prompts. Just send me those.

paulpauper 2mo ago

Many people use many prompts and revisions or prompts or combinations or human and AI writing. Its not a simple as just making a single prompt and copying the output as the blog post.

rsalus 2mo ago
Yeah, by the time my thought is fully formed I've gone through an entire conversation.
pelotron 2mo ago
They could prompt the AI to scroll up and copy their previous prompts for them.

snmx999 2mo ago

Not all AI content was created with one prompt.

onion2k 2mo ago

That implies you think the output of an LLM is only a rewording of the prompt, and that it doesn't add anything from it's corpus of training data. That's obviously untrue.

Alpha3031 2mo ago
I'm in the "post both and let your readers figure out which, if any, they prefer" camp but even if you didn't (and unless you were using one of those super special models that can't be released according to the companies) I would hope that any literate adult that thought it valuable would be capable of consulting something with comparable knowledge and experience. Of course, given that posting one is not mutually exclusive with posting the other, I would still think that posting both is the easiest way to satisfy both people who prefer to read the prompt and those who prefer the read the output.
andriamanitra 2mo ago
Even when LLMs add something it's a better idea to let the readers use LLMs to augment content. They have the best knowledge of their own background and what they're looking for. Sharing information that is already in the corpus is simply not that valuable in a world where everyone has access to their own LLMs.

iwontberude 2mo ago

[dead]

m132 2mo ago

I like how some people take offence at that

fallingbananna 2mo ago
I don't like it. I don't take any offence. It just triggers the same AI;DR for me. If I think the task requires a human to think about it. And the person is the human paid to think about it. Whether I get a wall of AI text, prompt, or an entire AI conversation... there is no human insight in it. If that person took the time to think about the problem, had a chat with the AI, and understood the output, surely they can take the final step and tell me the short result/summary themselves, right? --- However, if I had to choose lesser evil, I would of course prefer to have a link to the AI conversation over having a wall of text directly in the conversation.

supermatt 2mo ago

How is this? https://claude.ai/share/99bfee0f-bab9-4593-aabb-377e71f1151d https://claude.ai/share/99bfee0f-bab9-4593-aabb-377e71f1151d

miyoji 2mo ago
Yes, the original prompt is 10000% better than the AI output, because it shows me exactly how much the author (you?) cares about this topic and how much effort they're willing to put into communication, which is barely any at all.
- supermatt 2mo ago
  > which is barely any at all Clearly you either didn't read it, misunderstood it, disbelieved it, or just DGAF :)
  - swatcoder 2mo ago
    What I read is that you're self-conscious about your writing style and that you find the LLM processed version of your own stream of thoughts to be helpful to you yourself. Which is fine for you, but doesn't change that many people can get more insight out of your original text than they can out of the generated adaptation, and can do so with more interest and less fatigue. And indeed, you don't have to care about that. But one would think that in publishing or sharing your writing at all, you do in fact have some investment in whether people receive those insights that you have. Otherwise, you could just keep the AI writings to yourself in the first place.
    - shimman 2mo ago
      These people need therapy not chatgpt subs.
  - minimaxir 2mo ago
    Many different people in this HN submission have given you similar feedback: given that, you should consider that your priors are not correct.

jampa 2mo ago

I used to do that, but the person could be bad at prompting too (which is often why the LLM couldn't give a good answer in the first place). So the polite version I use now is: "Hey, just to get a bit more context, what was the original problem you were trying to solve?". That gets them to distill their own problem a bit further.

raincole 2mo ago

The prompt is the whole chat history. It would be like 10~20 times longer than the final output if the author gave the slightest amount of shit.

Alpha3031 2mo ago
The author giving the slightest amount of shit seems like a big assumption to make, but ultimately even it that were the case I don't see why I would prefer what I read to be curated in that specific manner (having access only to what has been filtered past some black box). As opposed to being able to choose what to read from the whole chat history.

imadeanaccountj 2mo ago

[dead]

coderatlarge 2mo ago

i personally prompt to produce a baseline then re-prompt to tweak then re-re-prompt to re-order, then re-re-re-prompt to expand certain parts, then re-re-re-reprompt to properly cross reference internally , then re-re-re-re-reprompt to proof read and add missing references . so there is no single prompt that produced the document and if i were to start from scratch the path would likely be different.

hinkley 2mo ago

Somewhere in that wall of text is a single statement that might sink the entire project...

CuriouslyC 2mo ago

Would you prefer a 10k word discussion with an agent about a hypothesis with back and forth over data sources and such, analysis, etc, or a 2000 word AI essay condensate with the rough edges smoothed over manually?

prmoustache 2mo ago
It really depends if the rough edges are load bearing.

globular-toast 2mo ago

Yeah, my post is more than a year old at this point: https://blog.gpkb.org/posts/just-send-me-the-prompt/ https://blog.gpkb.org/posts/just-send-me-the-prompt/ A lot of people replying seem to be misunderstanding, though. The only point of human-to-human communication is to transmit thoughts from one brain to another. If you simply send me stuff from AI then I don't need you. I want to hear your thoughts. If you don't have any, then I don't need or want to hear from you. Your thoughts are entirely contained within your prompts. Just send me those.