| ▲ | quantummagic 4 hours ago | ||||||||||||||||
Here's one rewrite that would have helped: To be fair, as you can see in the clip, the two models handled the prompt slightly differently. The pxpipe variant gave the right count initially but needed a quick follow-up to output the ledger balance in a single line. The standard model, on the other hand, nailed the formatting on its first try. We've completely solved readability here on Fable; our only real hurdle left is getting the models to follow formatting constraints perfectly on the very first reply. Of course, this was just rewritten by another LLM. | |||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | sebmellen 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||
Yeah, but as you say, this is another LLM rewriting it. The amount of noncontextual information is nauseating and destroys the point of a README (in my humble opinion). A human might have written a disclaimer like this: > When not using Fable, pxpipe may require additional follow-ups to precisely follow your formatting instructions. This kind of garbled information dump is very inconsiderate of the reader, and all good writing is considerate of the audience consuming it. | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | georgemcbay 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | ||||||||||||||||
Reads a little bit better, but still reads like a writer getting paid by the word, which I guess is fitting. | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||