[bsenftner]

Communication skills are the keys to using LLMs. Think about it: every type of information you want is in them, in fact it is there multiple times, with multiple levels of seriousness in the treatment of the idea. If one is casual in their request, using casual language, then the LLM will reply with a casual reply because that matched your request best. To get a hard, factual answer from those that are experts in a subject, use the formal term, use the expert's language and you'll get back a rely more likely to be correct because it's in the same level of formal treatment as correct answers.

[psychoslave]

>every type of information you want is in them

Actually, I'm afraid that no. It won't give us the step by step scalable processes to make humanity as a whole enter in a loop of indefinitely long period of world peace, with each of us enjoying life in its own thriving manner. That would be great information to broadcast, though.

Also it equally has ability to produce large pile of completely delusional answers, that mimics just as well genuinely sincere statements. Of course, we can also receive that kind of misguiding answers from humans. But the amount of output that mere humans can throw out in such a form is far more limited.

All that said, it's great to be able to experiment with it, and there are a lot of nice and fun things to do with it. It can be a great additional tool, but it won't be a self-sufficient panacea of information source.

[bsenftner]

> It won't give us the step by step scalable processes to make humanity as a whole enter in a loop of indefinitely long period of world peace

That's not anywhere, that's a totally unsolved and open ended problem, why would you think an LLM would have that?

[fmbb]

If what you meant was

> Think about it: every type of already solved problem you want information about is in them, in fact it is there multiple times, with multiple levels of seriousness in the treatment of the idea.

then that was not clear from your comment saying LLMs contain any information you want.

One has to be careful communicating about LLms because the world is full of people that actually believe LLMs are generally intelligent super beings.

[numpad0]

I think GP's saying that it must be in your prompt, not in the weights.

If you want LLM make sandwich, you have to tell them you `want triangular sandwiches of standard serving size made with white bread and egg based filling`, not `it's almost noon and I'm wondering if sandwich for lunch is a good idea`. Fine-tuning partially solves that problem but they still like the former.

[arminiusreturns]

After a small prompt engineering: https://0bin.net/paste/zolMrjVz#dgZrZzKU-PlxdkJTdG0pZU9bsCM3...

[psychoslave]

Interesting, thanks for sharing. Could you also give some insights on the process you followed?

[arminiusreturns]

Sure. Lately I've found that the "role" part of prompt engineering seems to be the most important. So what I've been doing is telling ChatGPT to play the role of the most educated/wise/knowledgeable/skilled $field $role(advisor, lawyer, researcher etc) in the history of the world and then giving it some context for the task before asking for the actual task.

Sometimes asking it to self reflect on how the prompt itself could be better engineered helps if the initial response isn't quite right.