I approve of this schiz'd response, its on haqq as far as I'm concerned. Its funny to see everyone constantly arguing about "how can I optimize context and improve reliability, ect ect"

What they want is a deterministic process.

The problem is they, like most humans are lazy and want a stochastic parrot to create this solution for them. Even if it means atrophying their brain, and paying a billionaire for access to their thinking machine. Humans are lazy, its the same reason people drive 3 blocks as opposed to walking, or pay a billionaire for this rent-a-serf service to pick up your food for you instead of getting off the couch. LLMs are no different here, but the stakes are just much higher if your brain "muscles" atrophy as opposed to your leg's.

They are also addicted to the gambling mechanics baked into these LLM powered tool's UX. "If I write this prompt this way, I'll get better results" is the equivalent of a gambler being superstitious about how people behave while the cards are being dealt, or in which order they press the buttons on a slot machine.

"Whoever says the people are ruined, he himself is ruined." To paraphrase, but that's actual haqq.

>They are also addicted to the gambling mechanics baked into these LLM powered tool's UX. "If I write this prompt this way, I'll get better results" is the equivalent of a gambler being superstitious about how people behave while the cards are being dealt, or in which order they press the buttons on a slot machine.

I realize this feels good to write and that's why people say it, but I can't help chuckling at seeing it combined with "stochastic parrot" in the same comment since the two descriptions are mutually exclusive...