←back to thread

923 points zh2408 | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
bilalq ◴[] No.43741590[source]
This is actually really cool. I just tried it out using an AI studio API key and was pretty impressed. One issue I noticed was that the output was a little too much "for dummies". Spending paragraphs to explain what an API is through restaurant analogies is a little unnecessary. And then followed up with more paragraphs on what GraphQL is. Every chapter seems to suffer from this. The generated documentation seems more suited for a slightly technical PM moreso than a software engineer. This can probably be mitigated by refining the prompt.

The prompt would also maybe be better if it encouraged variety in diagrams. For somethings, a flow chart would fit better than a sequence diagram (e.g., a durable state machine workflow written using AWS Step Functions).

replies(4): >>43741600 #>>43743287 #>>43746793 #>>43764213 #
hackernewds ◴[] No.43741600[source]
exactly it is. I'd rather impressive but at the same time the audience is always going to be engineers, so perhaps it can be curated to still be technical to a degree? I can't imagine a scenario where I have to explain to the VP my ETL pipeline
replies(1): >>43742140 #
trcf21 ◴[] No.43742140[source]
From flow.py

Ensure the tone is welcoming and easy for a newcomer to understand{tone_note}.

- Output only the Markdown content for this chapter.

Now, directly provide a super beginner-friendly Markdown output (DON'T need ```markdown``` tags)

So just a change here might do the trick if you’re interested.

But I wonder how Gemini would manage different levels. From my take (mostly edtech and not in English) it’s really hard to tone the answer properly and not just have a black and white (5 year old vs expert talk) answer. Anyone has advice on that?

replies(1): >>43742316 #
porridgeraisin ◴[] No.43742316{3}[source]
This has given me decent success:

"Write simple, rigorous statements, starting from first principles, and making sure to take things to their logical conclusion. Write in straightforward prose, no bullet points and summaries. Avoid truisms and overly high-level statements. (Optionally) Assume that the reader {now put your original prompt whatever you had e.g 5 yo}"

Sometimes I write a few more lines with the same meaning as above, and sometimes less, they all work more or less OK. Randomly I get better results sometimes with small tweaks but nothing to make a pattern out of -- a useless endeavour anyway since these models change in minute ways every release, and in neural nets the blast radius of a small change is huge.

replies(1): >>43742558 #
1. trcf21 ◴[] No.43742558{4}[source]
Thanks I’ll try that!