[jasonwatkinspdx]

> Consider a director for theater/film. They are prompting their "tools" (to be reductive) to produce the art they want, and have to sometimes accept when they just can't get the results they want from their tool.

Bluntly, it's clear you have no personal understanding of such productions and did not understand the most important point of my comment and how different it is from piloting a generative model.

[dylan604]

Bluntly? You clearly have no idea who I am or what my work experience is like. I have no idea what your response has to do with anything, but I hope you feel better for getting it off your chest.

[jasonwatkinspdx]

Humans working on a creative team are not automatons given commands, and this is a pretty basic understanding even if you are super impressed by what large models can do.

[dylan604]

I am not super impressed by what LLMs can do, and think the current hype wave is ridiculous. I find them slightly more useful than NFTs.

But if you can't see how a director trying to use phrases like "I see what you're doing, and it's interesting. But let's try saying the actual lines a few more times, and then we'll let you play with it some more", or "okay, that was great. let's do it one more time", or "this time with more energy/angrier/etc", or "that was great everyone! this time, we're going to do the same thing but with..." or any other variations of director speak isn't like a user tweaking their prompt while looking for something entirely different or keeping parts of it while looking to change a different part.

If you can't see how that kind of feedback loop is similar to using a GPT, then you're really being obtuse as it's as blatant as the nose on your face