> 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.)

▲

prymitive 40 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

Oh the number of time LLM will, for example, be giving me the list of bugs it found in code, when I ask it for a review, just to decide there’s no big half way through explaining it.

▲

radlad an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I don't expect that would be the case. This is what's called BLUF or Bottom Line Up Front: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BLUF_(communication)

The model will still have read the entirety of the document before composing its response. And I believe that even in auto mode, there are thinking tokens behind the scenes.

▲

cma an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Why would auto mode turn off thinking?

	▲	derefr an hour ago \| parent [-]
		The "auto" mode is (AFAICT) a per-conversation-turn router. (Presumably via a preliminary pass through a very fast tiny model that spits out an number for how challenging it thinks the next response might be to compute.) On high-challenge turns, the auto mode routes to the "thinking" model. But on low-challenge turns, it routes to the "instant" model. And the "instant" model, by design, has no capacity for deliberation. (If it did, it couldn't guarantee that its responses would begin streaming "instantly.")