[cpt_sobel]

In the plethora of all these articles that explain the process of building projects with LLMs, one thing I never understood it why the authors seem to write the prompts as if talking to a human that cares how good their grammar or syntax is, e.g.:

> I'd like to add email support to this bot. Let's think through how we would do this.

and I'm not not even talking about the usage of "please" or "thanks" (which this particular author doesn't seem to be doing).

Is there any evidence that suggests the models do a better job if I write my prompt like this instead of "wanna add email support, think how to do this"? In my personal experience (mostly with Junie) I haven't seen any advantage of being "polite", for lack of a better word, and I feel like I'm saving on seconds and tokens :)

[dgb23]

I can't speak for everyone, but to me the most accurate answer is that I'm role-playing, because it just flows better.

In the back of my head I know the chatbot is trained on conversations and I want it to reflect a professional and clear tone.

But I usually keep it more simple in most cases. Your example:

> I'd like to add email support to this bot. Let's think through how we would do this.

I would likely write as:

> if i wanted to add email support, how would you go about it

or

> concise steps/plan to add email support, kiss

But when I'm in a brainstorm/search/rubber-duck mode, then I write more as if it was a real conversation.

[xnorswap]

I agree, it's just easier to write requirements and refine things as if writing with a human. I no longer care that it risks anthropomorphising it, as that fight has long been lost. I prefer to focus on remembering it doesn't actually think/reason than not being polite to it.

Keeping everything generally "human readable" also the advantage of it being easier for me to review later if needed.

[alkonaut]

I also always imagine that if I'm joined by a colleague on this task they might have to read through my conversation and I want to make it clear to a human too.

As you said, that "other person" might be me too. Same reason I comment code. There's another person reading it, most likely that other person is "me, but next week and with zero memory of this".

We do like anthropomorphising the machines, but I try to think they enjoy it...

[jstanley]

How can you use these models for any length of time and walk away with the understanding that they do not think or reason?

What even is thinking and reasoning if these models aren't doing it?

[xnorswap]

They produce wonderful results, they are incredibly powerful, but they do not think or reason.

Among many other factors, perhaps the most key differentiator for me that prevents me describing these as thinking, is proactivity.

LLMs are never pro-active.

( No, prompting them on a loop is not pro-activity ).

Human brains are so proactive that given zero stimuli they will hallucinate.

As for reasoning, they simply do not. They do a wonderful facsimile of reasoning, one that's especially useful for producing computer code. But they do not reason, and it is a mistake to treat them as if they can.

[jstanley]

I personally don't agree that proactivity is a prerequisite for thinking.

But what would proactivity in an LLM look like, if prompting in a loop doesn't count?

An LLM experiences reality in terms of the flow of the token stream. Each iteration of the LLM has 1 more token in the input context and the LLM has a quantum of experience while computing the output distribution for the new context.

A human experiences reality in terms of the flow of time.

We are not able to be proactive outside the flow of time, because it takes time for our brains to operate, and similarly LLMs are not able to be proactive outside the flow of tokens, because it takes tokens for the neural networks to operate.

The flow of time is so fundamental to how we work that we would not even have any way to be aware of any goings-on that happen "between" time steps even if there were any. The only reason LLMs know that there is anything going on in the time between tokens is because they're trained on text which says so.

Also an LLM will hallucinate on zero input quite happily if you keep sampling it and feeding it the generated tokens.

[dgb23]

Thinking and reasoning cannot be abstracted away from the individual who experiences the thinking and reasoning itself and changes because of it.

LLMs are amazing, but they represent a very narrow slice of what thinking is. Living beings are extremely dynamic and both much more complex and simple at the same time.

There is a reason for:

- companies releasing new versions every couple of months

- LLMs needing massive amounts of data to train on that is produced by us and not by itself interacting with the world

- a massive amount of manual labor being required both for data labeling and for reinforcement learning

- them not being able to guide through a solution, but ultimately needing guidance at every decision point

[kqr]

I think it mattered a lot more a few years ago, when the user's prompts were almost all context the LLM had to go by. A prompt written in a sloppy style would cause the LLM to respond in a sloppy style (since it's a snazzy autocomplete at its core). LLMs reason in tokens, so a sloppy style leads it to mimic the reasoning that it finds in the sloppy writing of its training data, which is worse reasoning.

These days, the user prompt is just a tiny part of the context it has, so it probably matters less or not at all.

I still do it though, much like I try to include relevant technical terminology to try to nudge its search into the right areas of vector space. (Which is the part of the vector space built from more advanced discourse in the training material.)

[tarsinge]

The reasoning is by being polite the LLM is more likely to stay on a professional path: at its core a LLM try to make your prompt coherent with its training set, and a polite prompt + its answer will score higher (gives better result) than a prompt that is out of place with the answer. I understand to some people it could feel like anthropomorphising and could turn them off but to me it's purely about engineering.

Edit: wording

[wiseowise]

> The reasoning is by being polite the LLM is more likely to stay on a professional path

So no evidence.

[cpt_sobel]

> If the result of your prompt + its answer it's more likely to score higher i.e. gives better result that a prompt that feels out of place with the answer

Sure seems like this could be the case with the structure of the prompt, but what about capitalizing the first letter of sentence, or adding commas, tag questions etc? They seem like semantics that will not play any role at the end

[spudlyo]

Writing is what gives my thinking structure. Sloppy writing feels to me like sloppy thinking. My fingers capitalize the first letter of words, proper nouns and adjectives, and add punctuation without me consciously asking them to do so.

[TheDong]

Why wouldn't capitalization, commas, etc do well?

These are text completion engines.

Punctuation and capitalization is found in polite discussion and textbooks, and so you'd expect those tokens to ever so slightly push the model in that direction.

Lack of capitalization pushes towards text messages and irc perhaps.

We cannot reason about these things in the same way we can reason about using search engines, these things are truly ridiculous black boxes.

[cpt_sobel]

> Lack of capitalization pushes towards text messages and irc perhaps.

Might very well be the case, I wonder if there's some actual research on this by people that have some access to the the internals of these black boxes.

[pegasus]

That's orthography, not semantics, but it's still part of the professional style steering the model on the "professional path" as GP put it.

[vitro]

For me it is just a good habit that I want to keep.

[mrbungie]

I remember studies that showed that being mean with the LLM got better answers, but by the other hand I also remember an study showing that maximizing bug-related parameters ended up with meaner/malignant LLMs.

[cpt_sobel]

Surely this could depend on the model, and I'm only hypothesizing here, but being mean (or just having a dry tone) might equal a "cut the glazing" implicit instruction to the model, which would help I guess.

[raincole]

Because some people like to be polite? Is it this hard to understand? Your hand-written prompts are unlikely to take significant chunk of context window anyway.

[cpt_sobel]

Polite to whom?

[qsera]

I think it is easier to be polite always and not switch between polite and non-polite mode depending on who you are talking to.

[silversmith]

I believe it's less about politeness and more about pronouns. You used `who`, whereas I would use `what` in that sentence.

In my world view, a LLM is far closer to a fridge than the androids of the movies, let alone human beings. So it's about as pointless being polite to it as is greeting your fridge when you walk into the kitchen.

But I know that others feel different, treating the ability to generate coherent responses as indication of the "divine spark".

[darkerside]

I'd say it's more related to getting dressed for work even if you're remote and have no video calls

[cpt_sobel]

I get what you're saying, but I'm not talking about swearing at the model or anything, I'm only implying that investing energy in formulating a syntactically nice sentence doesn't or shouldn't bring any value, and that I don't care if I hurt the model's feelings (it doesn't have any).

Note, why would the author write "Email will arrive from a webhook, yes." instead of "yy webhook"? In the second case I wouldn't be impolite either, I might reply like this in an IM to a colleague I work with every day.

[well_ackshually]

>investing energy

For the vast majority of people, using capital letters and saying please doesn't consume energy, it just is. There's a thousand things in your day that consume more energy like a shitty 9AM daily.

[chriswarbo]

> investing energy in formulating a syntactically nice sentence

This seem to be completely subjective; I write syntactically/grammatically "nice" sentences to LLMs, because that's how I write. I would have to "invest energy" to force myself to write in that supposedly "simpler" style.

[jstanley]

"yy webhook" is much less clear. It could just as easily mean "why webhook" as "yes webhook".

It's also actually more trouble to formulate abbreviated sentences than normal ones, at least for literate adults who can type reasonably well.

[cpt_sobel]

I confidently assume that the model has been trained on an ungodly amount of abbreviated text and "yy" has always meant "yeah".

> literate adults who can type reasonably well

For me the difference is around 20 wpm in writing speed if just write out my stream of thoughts vs when I care about typos and capitalizing words - I find real value in this.

[stavros]

It's just easier for me to write that way. In that specific sentence, I also kind of reaffirmed what was going on in my head and typed my thought process out loud. There's no deeper logic than that, it's just what's easier for me.

[layer8]

> investing energy in formulating a syntactically nice sentence

It would cost me energy to deliberately not write with proper grammar and orthography. I would never want to write sloppily to a colleague either.

[northzen]

To machine. It just easier to be polite by default than split our language into two forms "I speak to human" and "I speak to machine". Because the chat interface is really close to what we see when we speak to human. Well, exactly the same.

[raincole]

To the computer? Many cultures pay respect to mountains, rivers and fields. Many people act differently round churches and monuments. I see nothing wrong being polite to a machine. Especially a machine that makes you money.

[jstummbillig]

Anything or anyone. Being polite to your surroundings reflects in your surroundings.

[pferde]

Did you thank your keyboard for letting you type this comment?

[jstummbillig]

No. I would not consider that a useful form of politeness towards an object (but, clearly, others disagree). I chose to wash hands, clean the keyboard regularly and steer clear of abusing it in other ways.

[trq01758]

My view is that when some "for bots only" type of writing becomes a habit, communication with humans will atrophy. Tokens be damned, but this kind of context switch comes at much too high a cost.

[vikramkr]

For models that reveal reasoning traces I've seen their inner nature as a word calculator show up as they spend way too many tokens complaining about the typo (and AI code review bots also seem obsessed with typos to the point where in a mid harness a few too many irrelevant typos means the model fixates on them and doesn't catch other errors). I don't know if they've gotten better at that recently but why bother. Plus there's probably something to the model trying to match the user's style (it is auto complete with many extra steps) resulting in sloppier output if you give it a sloppier prompt.

[movpasd]

I prompt politely for two reasons: I suspect it makes the model less likely to spiral (but have no hard evidence either way), and I think it's just good to keep up the habit for when I talk to real people.

[stavros]

I write "properly" (and I do say "please" and "thank you"), just because I like exercising that muscle. The LLM doesn't care, but I do.

[lbreakjai]

I just don't want to build the habit of being a sloppy writer, because it will eventually leak into the conversations I have with real humans.

[bob1029]

With current models this isn't as big of a deal, but why risk being an asshole in any context? I don't think treating something like shit simply because it's a machine is a good excuse.

Also consider the insanity of intentionally feeding bullshit into an information engine and expecting good things to come out the other end. The fact that they often perform well despite the ugliness is a miracle, but I wouldn't depend on it.

[wartywhoa23]

spare_this_one_he_used_to_say_thanks_to_us.jxl

[cpt_sobel]

I neither talked about feeding bullshit into it, nor treating it like shit. Around half of the commenters here seem to be missing the middle ground, how is prompting "i need my project to do A, B, C using X Y Z" treating it like shit?

[koe123]

Just stream of consciousness into the context window works wonders for me. More important to provide the model good context for your question

[roel_v]

Related to this, has anyone investigated how much typos matter in your chats? I would imagine that typing 'typescfipt' would not be a token in the input training set, so how would the model recognize this as actually meaning 'typescript'? Or does the tokenizer deal with this in an earlier stage?

[themantri]

I have tried prompting with a bunch of typos in Claude Code with Sonnet and found it to be fairly tolerant.

It has always done what I meant or asked me a clarifying question (because of my CLAUDE.md instruction).

[Havoc]

Some people are just polite by nature & habits are hard to break

[staticassertion]

There is evidence of that, but more importantly, it wouldn't occur to me to write "wanna add email support". That's not my natural voice.

[giuscri]

one reason to do that could be it’s trained on conversations happened between humans.

[olalonde]

I suspect they just find it easier and more natural to write with proper grammar.

[dmos62]

I choose to talk in a respectful way, because that's how I want to communicate: it's not because I'm afraid of retaliation or burning bridges. It's because I am caring and conscious. If I think that something doesn't have feelings or long-term memory, whether it's AI or a piece of rock on the side of a trail, it in no way leads me to be abusive to it.

Further, an LLM being inherently sycophantic leads to it mimmicking me, so if I talk to it in a stupid or abusive (which is just another form of stupidity, in my eyes) manner, it will behave stupid. Or, that's what I'd expect. I've not researched this in a focused way, but I've seen examples where people get LLMs to be very unintelligent by prompting riddles or intelligence tests in highly-stylized speech. I wanted to say "highly-stupid speech", but "stylized" is probably more accurate, e.g.: `YOOOO CHATGEEEPEEETEEE!!!!!!1111 wasup I gots to asks you DIS.......`. Maybe someone can prove me wrong.

[cpt_sobel]

My wondering was never about being abusive, rather just having a dry tone and cutting the unnecessary parts, some sort of middle ground if you will. Prompting "yo chatgeepeetee whats good lemme get this feature real quick" doesn't make sense to me mostly because it's anthrophomorphizing it, and it's the same concept of unnecessary writing as "Good morning ChatGPT, would you please help me with ..."

[dmos62]

I guess in part I commented not on what you said, but on seeing people be abusive when an LLM doesn't follow instructions or fails to fulfill some expectation. I think I had some pent up feelings about that.

> having a dry tone and cutting the unnecessary parts

That's how I try to communicate in professional settings (AI included). Our approaches might not be that different.

[cpt_sobel]

> seeing people be abusive when an LLM doesn't follow instructions or fails to fulfill some expectation. I think I had some pent up feelings about that.

Oh me too, because people are anthropomorphizing the LLM, not because they hurt it. Indirectly, though, I agree that this behaviour can easily affect the way this person would speak to other humans

[nacozarina]

agree, prompting a token predictor like you’re talking to a person is counterproductive and I too wish it would stop

the models consistently spew slop when one does it, I have no idea where positive reinforcement for that behavior is coming from