[pscanf]

Author here. I definitely agree that communicating well is a prerequisite to getting decent results. On the other hand:

1. Even if you communicate perfectly, there's no guarantee that the LLM will "behave as instructed" and as you imagined it to. Indeed, the frustration often comes from the fact that you've said something as clear as day, yet the agent takes another path.

2. Part of the value of coding agents is exactly that you don't need to lay it all out perfectly for them. I mean, if I need to give the LLM every little implementation detail, I might as well write the code. Of course, I don't expect it to work off of "I want nice app make money", but I do expect some "intelligence" in figuring out the missing pieces.

[scotty79]

> Even if you communicate perfectly, there's no guarantee that the LLM will "behave as instructed" and as you imagined it to. Indeed, the frustration often comes from the fact that you've said something as clear as day, yet the agent takes another path.

People forget. People misunderstand clear things. Teach yourself to not judge people for being human. You'll have easier time with AI. You are not gonna be angry at 5 year old because it occasionally can't follow your instructions. AI is a 5 year old that accidentally ate all the encyclopedias in the world and is super eager to help. Be a more charitable, generous, understanding person, even in the absence of actual people.

Also try a stronger model. There is a difference. I have very good results with Codex but don't get fixated on any one, they are all "state of the art" or close but they are different and state of the art is moving ahead faster and faster.

[recursive]

I don't extend the same grace to machines as I do to humans. This is working as intended. I have patience for people that mistake. But much less for machines. Why should I? These are things created by trillion dollar for-profit corporations. Extending them any benefit of any doubt is a vulnerability waiting to be exploited.

[scotty79]

That's the issue. You frame your relationships with people using words like "grace" and "patience".

If you were "good natured", "kind hearted", "understanding" and "nurturing" instead you wouldn't have to "extend" it to "machines" because those are not limited resources you can run out of. Politeness towards AI would come naturally because of who you are. The only thing you could run out of is energy and that's easy to replenish with a bit of sleep and a meal.

And it would lead to better results. Not because there'd be some genuine psychological interaction between you and LLM. LLMs are not machines. They are just a finetuned math equation that tends to give better results when people act nice.

Also it would be better for your own well being because it would reduce your frustration. Both with LLMs and people.

[recursive]

You're making a lot of assertions about the nature of relationships and the definition of machines. I'll assume this is based on a philosophy that works for you. But now you have set up a system of definitions where, for example, a good natured person, by definition, cannot be frustrated. It kind of sounds like sophistry to me.

I genuinely don't understand your argument about machines. It's not a machine it's just a system of levers and pulleys.

I have developed some of my own systems for minimizing frustration, and they generally work reasonably well, despite being different from yours.

[scotty79]

> You're making a lot of assertions about the nature of relationships and the definition of machines. I'll assume this is based on a philosophy that works for you

Always.

> But now you have set up a system of definitions where, for example, a good natured person, by definition, cannot be frustrated.

> It kind of sounds like sophistry to me.

It's just my lived experience. When I get frustrated I don't look for guilty and their flaws or seek retribution. I'm feeling something more along the lines "I'm not mad. I'm just disappointed." and tired that the world is not in the state I would like it to be.

Do you think Mr. Rogers would verbally abuse AI if it wasn't giving him answers he expected because he ran out of "patience" or "grace"?

> I genuinely don't understand your argument about machines. It's not a machine it's just a system of levers and pulleys.

Think for a moment about a "machine". List all the things that you expect of machines, that you think they ought to be, that you know they sometimes are. Think about their behaviors both intended and unintended. Think about would you evaluate what is a good and a bad machine. Now you have a rough picture of what a machine is for you.

Now try to imagine something else like a fast food worker, or a cat or a dining experience. Try to imagine that whatever you came up with is a machine. You expect them to have machine qualities, machine flaws and you expect of them what you would expect of a machine. Inspect how many mistakes would you make if you navigated the world with assumption that they belong to a "machine" class. How many frustrations and of what kinds would that bring.

Regardless of LLMs implementation details, based only on the results and frustrations, yours and reported by other people, can you recognize that thinking about them as of "machines" is a misclassification error?

Something like a ChatGPT app is more of a machine, but nearly its entire value comes from the main component that has almost nothing to do with the concept of a machine.

[recursive]

There is overlap in the things that humans and machines can do. But to me, humans enjoy a special position regardless of what they can do or are doing.

If I'm using a ball-point pen (a machine) that's leaking ink, I'm just going to throw it in the trash.

If I'm using a hand-made slingshot made as a gift, and one of the straps breaks, I will endeavor to fix it.

To me, the chief difference between a fast food worker and a machine is that one is a human. To me, humans deserve more respect than machines simply because they are humans. If a human successfully tricks me into thinking they are not a human, then I will also erroneously afford them less respect than I intended to.

What you call the biggest value of ChatGPT is what I'd call its biggest threat.

[watwut]

> Teach yourself to not judge people for being human. You'll have easier time with AI.

LLM is not a human. This implication that OP or someone else is impatient against people when they get frustrated with effin machine is completely absurd.

> AI is a 5 year old that accidentally ate all the encyclopedias in the world and is super eager to help

LLM is not 5 years old kid. It is an expensive tool.

[scotty79]

LLM literally is neither 5 year old kid, nor a machine. It's just a large math equation that was tuned to produce outputs similar to what humans produce.

If you choose to think about LLM as a machine you are biased. You expect from it things you'd expect from a machine. Reliability, repeatability, utility, indifference, etc. You pass your past frustrations with other machines onto LLMs.

If you choose to think about LLM as well read 5 year old you are also biased to expect from it different things. You don't have the same frustrations. You have different behaviors towards it. Behaviors that accidentally are more conducive to drawing value from the tool that is LLM.

We perceive the world through metaphors. If you pick wrong (counterproductive) metaphors you end up being constantly upset by something that's just a math result. By no ones fault but your own.

[vanuatu]

What is an analogy?

[contrast]

"Teach yourself to not judge people for being human."

"Be a more charitable, generous, understanding person."

Anyone making such blatantly judgemental and egotistical comments to a complete stranger has absolutely no idea what is frustrating to people. And is not being anything like a charitable or understanding person.

[scotty79]

Thank you for illustrating perfectly, the mindset that gets you worst possible results from AI. I'm, in your opinion, wrong and you chose to react with indignant fury. What kind of result will that get you?