I think the issue is the post title. If the title was “role-based prompt engineering” you probably wouldn’t have gotten as many comments and certainly not as many disagreeing. She says she’s going to make a case for using please, and then fails to provide any actual examples of that. Pointing that out isn’t sanctimonious, nor does it mean people are being rude to AI. If you want to make a moral argument for it go ahead, but it seems like she’s attempting to propose a technical argument and then just doesn’t. For what it’s worth, I generally try and leave out superfluous words from prompts, in the same way that googling full sentences was previously less likely to result in a good answer than just key words. AI is not human. It’s a tool. If being rude to it ensured it would stop hallucinating, I don’t think it’d make you a bad person if you were rude to it.
There’s a comment here talking about antisocial behavior in gaming, and imho, if you without hesitation kick a dog in a video game, I’m not sure I’d view you the same way after. Plenty of people talk about how they struggle to do evil play throughs because they don’t like using rude options for npcs. Not saying please to AI doesn’t make you a psychopath.
Vodulas@beehaw.org 1 week ago
Is there a word for a sentence that does the same thing it describes?
There is no reason to denigrate people because they don’t agree with you or don’t like the nature of LLMs/generative algorithms. It really feels like you came looking for a fight (“I know the title will trigger people”) and trying to dismiss folks that point out this does not fix the fundamental problems with LLMs
sabreW4K3@lazysoci.al 1 week ago
I don’t editorilise titles. You can check my post history. Acknowledging that people are triggered by posts about AI, doesn’t mean I was looking for a fight. It simply showed that I’m self-aware and all of that ignores that this is beehaw where people post to avoid low quality shitty virtue signalling that you can expect from LW.
Vodulas@beehaw.org 1 week ago
Use of the word “trigger” is the key part here. It is most often used by right wingers just trying to piss people off (“triggering the libs”). Starting off with that and then commenting on how people are “sanctimonious” for expressing valid opinions are what tell me you were less than open to an actual conversation. It has nothing to do do with the post itself (though I tend to agree she really doesn’t say anything of value) and more to do with how you are going about interacting with people like a right wing troll. Hell even in this comment you end with a common right wing dismissive phrase (virtue signalling) that, again, tells other people you don’t want a conversation
Gaywallet@beehaw.org 1 week ago
I understand why you might be upset based on how they made a rather sweeping statement about the comments without addressing any content. When they said “a bunch of sanctimonious people with too much appreciation for their own thoughts and a lack of any semblance of basic behaviour” it might strike many as an attack on the user base, but I’m choosing to interpret it through the lens of simply being upset at people who are not nice. I could be wrong, and perhaps @sabreW4K3@lazysoci.al can elaborate on exactly who and what they were talking about.
Regardless, let’s try our best to treat them in good faith. Don’t let your own biases shape how you interpret people or their language. Please try to ask clarifying questions first before jumping to the assumption that they are a right wing troll.