Sure, but the study is saying something slightly different, it's not that people write bad prompts for artifacts, they actually write better ones (more specific, more examples, clearer goals,...). They just stop evaluating the result. So the input quality goes up but the quality control goes down.
Seems like it’s impossible for output to be good if the prompt is bad. Unless the AI is ignoring the literal instructions and just guessing “what you really want” which would be bad in a different way.
> On two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" In one case a member of the Upper, and in the other a member of the Lower, House put this question. I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question.
EDIT: This is a new iteration of an old problem. Even GIGO [1] arguably predates computers and describes a lot of systemic problems. It does seem a lot more difficult to distinguish between a "garbage" or "good" prompt though. Perhaps this problem is just going to keep getting harder.
What does prompting quality even mean, empirically? I feel like the LLM providers could/should provide prompt scoring as some kind of metric and provide hints to users on ways they can improve (possibly including ways the LLM is specifically trained to act for a given prompt).
I would very much prefer that he focuses on SpaceX and Tesla, in this order, seeing as he's more or less custom-built for those jobs, and there aren't that many people like that around.
Running Twitter OTOH? There's an endless supply of "captains of industry" in the Silicon Valley, who would be willing and able to do it.
> because the other side is too stupid to make their own decisions
The unfortunate reality is - that is the actual crux of the problem. Maybe say "incapable of making" instead of "too stupid to make", since that makes the scope wider. But that is the long and short of it.
What is generally known as ethics acts as a safeguard against random individuals running rampant and inflicting tremendous damage on society for personal gain.
In a broad context, Thiel acts like someone who has no such safeguards. The future he's pushing the world towards is the caricatural dystopia from Back To The Future (which was originally meant to lampoon Trump-like characters). Fortunately, he will probably fail.
If you don't see this at all, it's probably time to ask yourself just how similar to Thiel you actually are.
what kind of future do you think Thiel is pushing the world towards?
a lot of his writing involving Girard and other political philosophers reads as studying mimetic desire as a means of avoiding absolute total war in society and maintaining the hegemony of what he believes to be "enlightenment values" — destruction and unnecessary suffering is generally the antithesis of those beliefs
again, I don't even personally have to agree with all his ideas and writings to want to have a discussion about it
Dark Enlightenment thinking isn't far off that Holy Roman Empire. It's essentially an embracing of monarchy and caste, with rule belonging to the Peter Thiels of the world, based on various ways they can demonstrate their ability to claim that throne.
reply