| ▲ | anticorporate 2 hours ago | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
It seems like the way brevity instructions have changed is mis-aligned with how most people would expect to use them or are currently using them. Here's the example they give: > Instead of asking for the shortest possible answer, replace brevity instructions with prioritization: > Lead with the conclusion. Include the evidence needed to support it, any material caveat, and the next action. Omit secondary detail and repetition. > Keep all required facts, decisions, caveats, and next steps. Trim introductions, repetition, generic reassurance, and optional background first. Generally speaking, when I ask for a short answer, I want a short answer because I'm not really willing to read through a bunch of bullshit to get to a summary. Putting the onus back on me to assume what the model will return and write a longer prompt detailing exactly what information I want completely misses the point of why I'm asking for a short answer in the first place. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | derefr an hour ago | parent | next [-] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> Lead with conclusion. I would presume (perhaps falsely?) that an instruction like this would lead to the model presenting a conclusion not supported by the evidence, and potentially backtracking as it then tries to justify said conclusion. Yes, if deliberation happens, the model should figure out what it wants to say during that phase; but if you're using auto mode, the model is not going to be doing any deliberating half the time. In those cases, the output blathering is the model's only chance for deliberation. It "thinks as it talks", per se. Given that, I would advise a different approach: let it blather, but then get it to write you a conclusion at the end that the model can guarantee will obviate the need to read any of the blathering. I.e. advise the model to add an "executive summary" to the end of any non-trivial-in-length response. With some wording to carefully navigate the model between "the summary is itself too long" vs "the summary acts more like clickbait, leaving out necessary detail such that it requires actually reading the blather." Not sure exactly what that wording would look like. I imagine something like "write your postscript executive summary as if you were a senior CIA intelligence analyst summarizing ground-level reports into a daily digest for the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Take up as little of their time as possible, but ensure that any detail critical to decision-making is retained." (But that phrasing might only be useful if the model is delivering a certain type of response, and actively counter-productive otherwise. This kind of thing is delicate.) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | spathi_fwiffo 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Replace 2 word instruction ('be concise') with a 38 word instruction. Human can no longer be concise when asking for a few sentences instead of 20 paragraphs of BS they don't want to read when all they want is a summary to verify the general direction of the prompt-work before digging into the details. such progress! | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | Romario77 an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I think instead of "be concise" you could tell it how long the answer should be. I.e. give the answer in one paragraph. Or in 10 lines max. At least before it would listen to instructions like this. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||