Hacker News Reader

> Prompting LLMs correctly to get high quality answers is a skill.

That's like saying "reading the future from chicken entrails is a skill".

I don’t know how to square this with the fact that I routinely ask GPT-4 for code and get back answers that are in fact correct. You’re making it sound like it’s purely random, like I’m just getting back a string of zhrueksnbd8373&;! or something.

But that is what you get, it's just dressed up to sound like the answer. But it's not the answer , it can not be. If it accidentally is the answer, that's an accident, nothing more. See my example above about dangling commits...

> If it accidentally is the answer, that's an accident, nothing more.

Accuracy rates much, much higher than chance are not accidental. While you're pointing to a valid failure mode of LLMs, you're not using the correct words to describe it which is leading you to say nonsense.

yes, it is nonsense, all of it, we agree.

All of what you wrote is nonsense? Ok then.

No, all that LLMs produce is nonsense.

> That's like saying "reading the future from chicken entrails is a skill".

If I could read the future from chicken entrails with as high a reply accuracy as I get from ChatGPT, then I would fully endorse that too.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com