←back to thread

323 points steerlabs | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
keiferski ◴[] No.46192154[source]
The thing that bothers me the most about LLMs is how they never seem to understand "the flow" of an actual conversation between humans. When I ask a person something, I expect them to give me a short reply which includes another question/asks for details/clarification. A conversation is thus an ongoing "dance" where the questioner and answerer gradually arrive to the same shared meaning.

LLMs don't do this. Instead, every question is immediately responded to with extreme confidence with a paragraph or more of text. I know you can minimize this by configuring the settings on your account, but to me it just highlights how it's not operating in a way remotely similar to the human-human one I mentioned above. I constantly find myself saying, "No, I meant [concept] in this way, not that way," and then getting annoyed at the robot because it's masquerading as a human.

replies(37): >>46192230 #>>46192268 #>>46192346 #>>46192427 #>>46192525 #>>46192574 #>>46192631 #>>46192754 #>>46192800 #>>46192900 #>>46193063 #>>46193161 #>>46193374 #>>46193376 #>>46193470 #>>46193656 #>>46193908 #>>46194231 #>>46194299 #>>46194388 #>>46194411 #>>46194483 #>>46194761 #>>46195048 #>>46195085 #>>46195309 #>>46195615 #>>46195656 #>>46195759 #>>46195794 #>>46195918 #>>46195981 #>>46196365 #>>46196372 #>>46196588 #>>46197200 #>>46198030 #
Archelaos ◴[] No.46192525[source]
I never expected LLMs to be like an actual conversation between humans. The model is in some respects more capable and in some respects more limited than a human. I mean, one could strive for an exact replica of a human -- but for what purpose? The whole thing is a huge association machine. It is a surealistic inspiration generator for me. This is how it works at the moment, until the next break through ...
replies(3): >>46192637 #>>46192799 #>>46193165 #
wongarsu ◴[] No.46192799[source]
> but for what purpose?

I recently introduced a non-technical person to Claude Code, and this non-human behavior was a big sticking point. They tried to talk to Claude similar as to a human, presenting it one piece of information at a time. With humans this is generally beneficial, and they will either nod for you to continue or ask clarifying questions. With Claude this does not work well, you have to infodump as much as possible in each message

So even from a perspective of "how do we make this automaton into the best tool", a more human-like conversation flow might be beneficial. And that doesn't seem beyond the technological capabilities at all, it's just not what we encourage in today's RLHF

replies(5): >>46193142 #>>46193143 #>>46193180 #>>46193774 #>>46195784 #
1. monerozcash ◴[] No.46193142{3}[source]
I haven't tried claude, but Codex manages this fine as long as you prompt it correctly to get started.

A lazy example:

"This goal of this project is to do x. Let's prepare a .md file where we spec out the task. Ask me a bunch of questions, one at a time, to help define the task"

Or you could just ask it to be more conversational, instead of just asking questions. It will do that.