|
|
|
|
|
by solarkraft
1 day ago
|
|
> One observation: ask an LLM to write a skill, it tends to make them overly verbose and prescriptive. Often, something briefer and human-written actually works better Incredibly so. All too often a “hey, you shouldn’t have done that here” turns into “NEVER X”, without it actually understanding or making an effort to understand why the correction was made, though I would say usually the context to do so should suffice. I have a rule for it to reason this through and use nuanced language and would say the frontier GPTs (5.4 to 5.6 Sol) get it right around half of the time (very rough estimate). The conclusions are really dumb sometimes. I’d be interested in an expertly crafted skill here, maybe there are things about it you can still improve. This is an area in which I still find LLMs to be quite lacking. It also made me appreciate the complexity of the nuances and levels of indirection of what I want to teach it: “Upload to the remote host, which in this case is this but might be another one in another use case, only do this on the local system and this on the remote, do this to X unless Y …, prefer doing Z unless another rule overrides it …” I sometimes feel like there could be a more expressive way to structure to structure these rules (bring the snark!). |
|