I am at a conference and 2/3rds of the presentations are AI assisted based on the numbered steps, and overall inhuman polish of some of the graphics and phrasing. I would prefer that they had been humanized because at least that may have given me the misimpression that they know what they were talking about.
You ever read a work of literature with such flowery language that right after you've read a paragraph, you pause and realize you have no clue what you actually read, only to read the paragraph maybe a second or third time and have your mind space out again and again on each successive attempt?
Yeah, for me, that's what parsing huge volumes of LLM-produced text like "direct model calls as replaceable semantic workers" does to my brain. Maybe others don't really have this issue, but after any long output, I prompt the agent "Go back and decompress any LLM-speak in light of the higher level task goals. Eliminate deictic language."
The revised output documents are solely for my personal usage to expedite understanding. The LLMs can slowly converge on their own language for all I care; I retain raw agent output for future agent usage (to avoid the "lossy" problem the author mentions), but that doesn't eliminate the need for some intermediate translation I can use to actually help get my work done instead of spending hours attempting to understand what a "load-bearing pinned gate" is.
I've come to believe this is also a side effect of the desire for less (/goal: no) human in the loop on the part of the people driving all this capex spend. I think if you actually want to manually review output there will be a moment where you will actually want a separate interface to a stupider or "simpler" model. I suspect sometimes dealing with Fable 5 that this threshold has already been crossed. It's not that the raw code output is so good, it's that it just doesn't speak to me in a way I would like. Perhaps the verbosity is worthwhile when generating code as a sort of first pass some other model can auto or adversarially chop down. The best place for a human is probably outside of this part of the loop all together.
So I might as well just let it auto /goal it's own thing with sufficient constraints while myself and a model that can converse in parallel with less "deictic" (thanks for this word btw) volume as you put it for the areas of the code where I want to "frame" the vocabulary or where my personal understanding is of high value. I know people already do this in many ways, like use one company's model for planning and another for coding. It just feels inevitable at a certain point that the "natural language" output of LLMs writing the bulk of the code is not targeted towards humans. And really, why should it be?
The effect you describe reminds me of reading Edward W. Said's "Orientalism" when I was younger. Fable suddenly started with this kind of lingo, iirc, and Opus 5 sounds exactly the same. Tin foil: it's ultimately a vendor lock-in strategy, you'll get the best results with agents from the same tribe, others will trip over the mountain of idiosyncratic metaphors.
This has recently become a pretty pressing issue for me, as it's starting to severely hinder my ability to be productive with the models. It's hard to tell if its getting worse with every model release, specific to Anthropic's models, a reflection of my ADHD, all/none of the above, but holy shit do I get aggravated when I'm forced to parse the most unintelligible, jargon-dense bullshit explanations in whatever the model output is. And then I feel silly getting genuinely tilted by the model's inability to just... explain something semi-normally, without it requiring me to berate it into simplicity.
For some discrete skills I use, I include a final step on the the output that runs through 1+ subagents to de-slop the text and to actually simplify it, but so far nothing has worked as well I've hoped. Considering hopping off Anthropic's models to try out others to see if they're less egregious.
I don't like it when the LLM tries to be my friend. My general prompt (a work in progress) is this. I wonder what other people use.
"Answer impersonally, objectively and analytically, without undue friendliness or enthusiasm. Use an engineering style response: concise, factual, and complete. Do not speak in the first person. Do not promote engagement or an emotional connection. Do not use emojis."
I watched 2001: A Space Odyssey when I was about 12 years old and I remember thinking that Frank Poole was impersonal and almost rude to HAL. I kept thinking, "Why can't you be nicer? You're treating HAL like a servant." Of course, later HAL kills him, so I had to revise my opinion.
At the end of "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" [if I'm remembering correctly] Deckard finds a toad in the desert. He gives it to his wife(!) and she immediately bonds with it. Later they realize that it is mechanical (they find a battery compartment). But Deckard's wife still treats it like a real creature and wonders whether it will eat mechanical flies.
The core theme of "Do Androids Dream..." is that humans display empathy towards others, not because others deserve it, but because we are human. To be human is to empathize with other creatures, and when we stop empathizing, we stop being human.
This morning I was working with Codex and we found the solution to a really nasty bug. I was so happy/relieved/excited to have found it, and I shared my excitement with Codex. I know Codex is just a big matmul. I know it doesn't experience joy or surprise or empathy. But I still want it to behave excited, not because it is human, but because I am.
It’s not perfect, it has shortcomings, it sometimes produces bogus outputs. All of that is fine for a tool, it’s not fine when it pretends it’s a conscious being, because errors start to feel like lies and it becomes a bit too personal.
People want it to be Data from Star Trek, when it really should be the ship's computer. I want to tell it to run a simulation accurately, create some solved tool, etc.
I don't think there's any correction that can return LLMs to a purely tool-space. Too many AI boyfriend/girlfriends.
You can want your e-scooter to be a jet ski, but you'll wind up having issues when you try to use it as one. LLMs are _really good_ at pretending to be something they aren't, but not always so good at being that thing, so you should be careful what you ask for.
The difference is what happens when you come to depend on it. Do you want your airplane to be flown by a pilot, or someone who's so good at talking like a pilot that they can fool almost everyone?
But the training data is "predominantly" human written sentences or even interaction. It's like asking you to use non dominant hand to do something. Won't they do better with human sounding english, rather than a made up format text? Are there any literature around this? I was also skeptical of this caveman extension etc.. Won't they work better in their actual language space it's trained on rather than made up language?
Well, what do you expect? LLMs are trained on blithering, mostly from web sites. So you get blithering out.
There's an important point in the article, that forcing a style onto an LLM is lossy. Although he doesn't seem to mention it, forcing a style may result in the insertion of new blithering, possibly made up as a hallucination.
I think that was a good enough explanation for gpt3.5 -- these days, labs are extremely capable of post-training phases that eclipse that kind of training phase -- and hence of choosing whatever style or tone they wish.
eg., OpenAI has gone a long way to making reasoning token-efficient by having reasoning piovot off terse langauge -- whereas anthropic appears to be doing the opposite.
is it lossy though? That didn't make sense to me. You can tell it to use Simplified Technical Language and also still have it give you all the detail. it's just another piece of the prompt that produces the output. it's not like there's "pure" llm output and then "lossy" output guided by a prompt.
And on the "input" side, one thing that used to improve google search result was to write like you are talking to a robot. "Ruby on rails http header set function". As opposed to "how do I set header in ruby?" Then you have to page through results until you find something specific to rails.
Now, the second example is the only thing that works. Power users have lost their powers with AI overview.
I still use the first strategy (with DDG) and it still works great. But for technologies I work often, I just take a bit of time to familiarize with the site's structure and maybe bookmarks a few pages.
One thing that continues to give me pause is Fable's insistence on using my fist name in messages and docs. Like, I'll explain what I want to the AI and ask it to write out a spec or brief and Fable says "Jamie wants me to ...". It just feels different and unprofessional. If I was at a job and a PM asked me to write up a task spec I wouldn't say "Harold wants to add <feature> ...". And since I am the one reading the output it is also superfluous and almost feels like talking about myself in third person. But there is almost a kind of glee in the way it uses my name, like a student using their teachers first name when the custom is to use Mr/Mrs.
Fair perspective, though I actually prefer this for two reasons:
* When it's proposing responses for me to choose between, a description like "I close the PR and you make a followup" is ambiguous - is "I" there "the entity making the proposition (the LLM)" or "the entity making the choice (me)".
* I have a line in my `AGENTS.md` specifically instructing it to call me by my name; if it stops doing so, that's a telltale that context-bloat is pushing out other instructions.
I usually leave memory/connections turned off. Remembering/finding out what my name would be is not really something I want to waste context or tokens in, let alone any if the other things it tries to assume I'd like it to remember/find.
Suppose you had an LLM (NN) producing its default output from an input (a generally optimal for-most-cases role-sys, and any role-user), and then you wanted to have that output reformatted in some style (e.g. "In iambic pentameter" | "haiku" | "eli5" | "in the style of Feynman" | "bulleted like Axios" ...). How would you keep the internal NN workings that were basis for the original output, and use them to get a rewritten version (instead of placing the original query and output in the context and ask to rewrite it)?
In other words, is there a way to keep the internal process intact up to the point of the formulation - and have only that vary.
Honest Short Fall -- <insert 30 lines of useless shit>.
If the author wants to read slop for hours, be my guest. Make it lossy, my job is not to read mimetic feelings, it's to make sure implementations get implemented.
I don't get it. The skills and instruction try to make the answer more machine like on purpose.
Not humanising it...
People want the terse, matter-of-fact output. Not the conversational chatty verbose and bloated nonsense with gray words and jargon and terms like "blast radius"
> The problem is that these instructions are not applied after the model has finished doing the work
Seems like something fixable with a simple two step process. Ask it the thing. Then ask it to summarise the answer in simpler terms. More tokens and time aside that would check both boxes
If you're finding Gemini "clean and straightforward" give it awhile. I felt the same thing too when I switched until I realized that it just hadn't formed a model for my communications yet. After awhile it became just as flowery as ChatGPT did. I had to tone both down with saved preferences.
There's some good points made here about losing fidelity by over-simplification. As an ADHD sufferer, I'd take this piece much more seriously if the title wasn't so belittling.
I don't think it's wise to take communication advice from someone so helplessly juvenile (and attention seeking) in their own communication attempts.
At first I read the title and mistook it for an argument against the anthropomorphism of LLMs. It isn't. Instead it's a take on suggesting that maybe it's a bad idea to dumb down the self-chatter in the process. A reasonable take.
It isn't deliberately unhinged like Steve Yegge's take: https://yegge.ai/essays/model-welfare/ In Steve's essay he starts with the assertion that agents are sentient... Whether or not that's true isn't really relevant, as his agent-flavored version of Pascal's wager actually holds water, especially for Anthropic models, as their system prompts already push the model in that direction, and it is better to work with them than try to prompt against the tide.
TLDR: This is an argument to get LLMs to answer in short, even code-like statements because you can exchange information quicker with an LLM that way. Cool!
Yeah, for me, that's what parsing huge volumes of LLM-produced text like "direct model calls as replaceable semantic workers" does to my brain. Maybe others don't really have this issue, but after any long output, I prompt the agent "Go back and decompress any LLM-speak in light of the higher level task goals. Eliminate deictic language."
The revised output documents are solely for my personal usage to expedite understanding. The LLMs can slowly converge on their own language for all I care; I retain raw agent output for future agent usage (to avoid the "lossy" problem the author mentions), but that doesn't eliminate the need for some intermediate translation I can use to actually help get my work done instead of spending hours attempting to understand what a "load-bearing pinned gate" is.
I've come to believe this is also a side effect of the desire for less (/goal: no) human in the loop on the part of the people driving all this capex spend. I think if you actually want to manually review output there will be a moment where you will actually want a separate interface to a stupider or "simpler" model. I suspect sometimes dealing with Fable 5 that this threshold has already been crossed. It's not that the raw code output is so good, it's that it just doesn't speak to me in a way I would like. Perhaps the verbosity is worthwhile when generating code as a sort of first pass some other model can auto or adversarially chop down. The best place for a human is probably outside of this part of the loop all together.
So I might as well just let it auto /goal it's own thing with sufficient constraints while myself and a model that can converse in parallel with less "deictic" (thanks for this word btw) volume as you put it for the areas of the code where I want to "frame" the vocabulary or where my personal understanding is of high value. I know people already do this in many ways, like use one company's model for planning and another for coding. It just feels inevitable at a certain point that the "natural language" output of LLMs writing the bulk of the code is not targeted towards humans. And really, why should it be?
Good point, there's an anti-competitive incentive, and self-bias in models is a mechanism to do it.
For some discrete skills I use, I include a final step on the the output that runs through 1+ subagents to de-slop the text and to actually simplify it, but so far nothing has worked as well I've hoped. Considering hopping off Anthropic's models to try out others to see if they're less egregious.
"Answer impersonally, objectively and analytically, without undue friendliness or enthusiasm. Use an engineering style response: concise, factual, and complete. Do not speak in the first person. Do not promote engagement or an emotional connection. Do not use emojis."
At the end of "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" [if I'm remembering correctly] Deckard finds a toad in the desert. He gives it to his wife(!) and she immediately bonds with it. Later they realize that it is mechanical (they find a battery compartment). But Deckard's wife still treats it like a real creature and wonders whether it will eat mechanical flies.
The core theme of "Do Androids Dream..." is that humans display empathy towards others, not because others deserve it, but because we are human. To be human is to empathize with other creatures, and when we stop empathizing, we stop being human.
This morning I was working with Codex and we found the solution to a really nasty bug. I was so happy/relieved/excited to have found it, and I shared my excitement with Codex. I know Codex is just a big matmul. I know it doesn't experience joy or surprise or empathy. But I still want it to behave excited, not because it is human, but because I am.
It’s not perfect, it has shortcomings, it sometimes produces bogus outputs. All of that is fine for a tool, it’s not fine when it pretends it’s a conscious being, because errors start to feel like lies and it becomes a bit too personal.
I don't think there's any correction that can return LLMs to a purely tool-space. Too many AI boyfriend/girlfriends.
These are tools and it would behoove us all to keep that top of mind. Dangerous tools that are not your friend (but are useful as tools nonetheless)
There's an important point in the article, that forcing a style onto an LLM is lossy. Although he doesn't seem to mention it, forcing a style may result in the insertion of new blithering, possibly made up as a hallucination.
eg., OpenAI has gone a long way to making reasoning token-efficient by having reasoning piovot off terse langauge -- whereas anthropic appears to be doing the opposite.
Now, the second example is the only thing that works. Power users have lost their powers with AI overview.
Tell? Largest “tell”?
Write in English, please:
“The biggest sign that shows me how culture and sentiment are changing, is…”
In other words, is there a way to keep the internal process intact up to the point of the formulation - and have only that vary.
If the author wants to read slop for hours, be my guest. Make it lossy, my job is not to read mimetic feelings, it's to make sure implementations get implemented.
Not humanising it...
People want the terse, matter-of-fact output. Not the conversational chatty verbose and bloated nonsense with gray words and jargon and terms like "blast radius"
Seems like something fixable with a simple two step process. Ask it the thing. Then ask it to summarise the answer in simpler terms. More tokens and time aside that would check both boxes
I don't think it's wise to take communication advice from someone so helplessly juvenile (and attention seeking) in their own communication attempts.
It isn't deliberately unhinged like Steve Yegge's take: https://yegge.ai/essays/model-welfare/ In Steve's essay he starts with the assertion that agents are sentient... Whether or not that's true isn't really relevant, as his agent-flavored version of Pascal's wager actually holds water, especially for Anthropic models, as their system prompts already push the model in that direction, and it is better to work with them than try to prompt against the tide.