7 ms·

>>> The demos of Fable/GPT-6 are impressive, but "real AGI" should act more like a collaborator than either a peon or overachiever. I don't really agree. The t

>>> The demos of Fable/GPT-6 are impressive, but "real AGI" should act more like a collaborator than either a peon or overachiever. I don't really agree. The thing that makes Fable feel like an actual collaborator is its ability to sus out your real intent when you give ambiguous instructions. It's really good at it. I watched some reviews today and came way with the impression that Astra is not better than Sol in this regard. You still have to be very specific with your instructions. For example, you can say "why is it not committed yet?" and it will give you an explanation and say it's actually ready to be committed. But it won't commit unless you explicitly say so. That sounds like a very tedious way of working with AI agents, but I understand some people want a high level of control.

StevenWaterman 13d ago
> For example, you can say "why is it not committed yet?" and it will give you an explanation and say it's actually ready to be committed. That's exactly what i want to happen. I hate when it assumes my direct question was an indirect instruction
- embedding-shape 13d ago
  This is one of those things that won't ever be "solved" as people just want different things here, hence we can steer the models with the system prompt. I'm mostly the same as you, I don't want the model to assume things, or act on implicit "directions". But then also, sometimes I do, and I myself might not always know when what approach is best.
  - amazingman 11d ago
    Indeed some people think they want a machine guessing at your intentions and acting upon that guess. Those people Are wrong in at least 2 directions: that it is what they want, and their implicit assumption that it could possibly be safe.
- diroussel 13d ago
  Indeed, I don’t ask rhetorical questions to an AI. They are of doubtful use when talking verball ly to a human, less good in online discussions, and totally unnecessary for agents.
druskacik 13d ago
Interesting. I actually prefer when agents don't commit on my behalf unless I explicitly say so, I even had to add a custom instruction for Claude to stop doing it (Codex never does it). Even if I don't read all the code line-by-line, I at least want to see the changes at glance and commit myself. Git Fork[0] is a great tool for that, by the way. In general, I don't like when I have to prompt models to NOT do something. It's probably difficult for the AI companies to get this right, they should understand ambiguity but still not over-do simple instructions. [0] https://git-fork.com/ https://git-fork.com/
zaphirplane 12d ago
Why would I ask a LLM a rhetorical question
- taikahessu 12d ago
  For context? Idk, I do it all the time... that is not because it's LLM, but because i'm wired that way. I tend to think out aloud.
iknowstuff 12d ago
It shouldn't make this assumption, it should say "because xyz. You want it committed?".
weird-eye-issue 12d ago
> For example, you can say "why is it not committed yet?" and it will give you an explanation and say it's actually ready to be committed. But it won't commit unless you explicitly say so. Well thank God, because that's the correct behavior. When you wanted to commit you can literally just say "commit" and nothing else. Imagine if you asked it "you didn't delete my production database did you?"... And then it deletes your production database

StevenWaterman 13d ago

> For example, you can say "why is it not committed yet?" and it will give you an explanation and say it's actually ready to be committed. That's exactly what i want to happen. I hate when it assumes my direct question was an indirect instruction

embedding-shape 13d ago
This is one of those things that won't ever be "solved" as people just want different things here, hence we can steer the models with the system prompt. I'm mostly the same as you, I don't want the model to assume things, or act on implicit "directions". But then also, sometimes I do, and I myself might not always know when what approach is best.
- amazingman 11d ago
  Indeed some people think they want a machine guessing at your intentions and acting upon that guess. Those people Are wrong in at least 2 directions: that it is what they want, and their implicit assumption that it could possibly be safe.
diroussel 13d ago
Indeed, I don’t ask rhetorical questions to an AI. They are of doubtful use when talking verball ly to a human, less good in online discussions, and totally unnecessary for agents.

druskacik 13d ago

Interesting. I actually prefer when agents don't commit on my behalf unless I explicitly say so, I even had to add a custom instruction for Claude to stop doing it (Codex never does it). Even if I don't read all the code line-by-line, I at least want to see the changes at glance and commit myself. Git Fork[0] is a great tool for that, by the way. In general, I don't like when I have to prompt models to NOT do something. It's probably difficult for the AI companies to get this right, they should understand ambiguity but still not over-do simple instructions. [0] https://git-fork.com/ https://git-fork.com/

zaphirplane 12d ago

Why would I ask a LLM a rhetorical question

taikahessu 12d ago
For context? Idk, I do it all the time... that is not because it's LLM, but because i'm wired that way. I tend to think out aloud.

iknowstuff 12d ago

It shouldn't make this assumption, it should say "because xyz. You want it committed?".

weird-eye-issue 12d ago

> For example, you can say "why is it not committed yet?" and it will give you an explanation and say it's actually ready to be committed. But it won't commit unless you explicitly say so. Well thank God, because that's the correct behavior. When you wanted to commit you can literally just say "commit" and nothing else. Imagine if you asked it "you didn't delete my production database did you?"... And then it deletes your production database