whats with female celebrities telling women to do things as if they live in a secluded world or something
Who’s paying her to say this?
Bigfem
Person who sold NFTs is serious about AI. Next it will be quantum
She can go first then if that her advice.
How does one ‘learn AI’?
Ever see someone using Google and cringe? People who have experience getting AI to do what they want feel the same when they see normies writing their prompts.
“Normies”
Lol ok
I don’t have experience getting ai to do what I want because I want it to go away.
oh give me a fucking break
Properly prompting an LLM is not something most people inherently get.
“Properly prompting” is to not prompt. A chat interface is the lowest fidelity interface to use with an LLM.
Tell me more? It’s the only way I’m familiar with interacting with an LLM
Examples to consider:
A code base with TODOs embedded will make fewer mistakes and spend less tokens than if you attempt to direct the LLM only with prompting.
A file system gives an LLM more context than a flat file (or large prompt) with the same contents because a file system has a tree like structure and makes it less likely the LLM will ingest context it doesn’t need and confuse it
Lastly consider the efficacy of providing it tools vs using agent skills which is another form of prompting. Giving an LLM a deterministic feedback loop beats tweaking your prompts every time
Ok so i think i do all of these things and would just describe them as “other ways to prompt and LLM” - i think the nuance youre shooting for here is that using these methods you are “pre-preparing” the prompt - not thinking about it at prompt-time and thus likely to miss stuff.
e.g. Feeding a TODO is just the same as copy-pasting that todo in as a prompt.
Have I understood you correctly?
No, it’s not the same as copying and pasting the TODO into a prompt. Embedding the TODO in code instead of the prompt reduces tokens burned and increases accuracy because it’s observing the TODO in context. Sure you can write more prompting to provide that context, but it still won’t be as accurate. The less context you provide via prompting and instead provide more context through automatic deterministc feedback the better the results
Okay so now I think you’re describing the behaviour I take for granted with the harness i.e. Claude Code.
Having good repo readiness through a good agents/claude.md file + tests + docs means the LLM is able to read more files into its context.
It never occurred to me that anyone would prompt in isolation of their repos but I guess thats exactly what it was like for me last year when I was just feeding ChatGPT prompts away from the repo.
I haven’t used an LLM, but it’s probably similar to how people could not Google for shit. I always considered myself something of an expert at using search engines, although they’ve gone to shit obviously, and with the advent of AI it seems like they will fade out.
I haven’t used an LLM
Amish?
I don’t know, it seems to me that most people know how to ask a question or make a request. It’s not that different. It’s just that a lot of people don’t understand what is possible and they freeze.
You tell them, to ask for anything you want. They uncork and say “So I can ask it for a chocolate cream pie?”. Partially in jest, but they do that because they don’t seem to have a comfortable knowledge of the limits. A person with little technical background has no need for output that they don’t understand. Once you guide them a little and let them know they can get a recipe for a chocolate cream pie and some practical advice on how to make it, that might be helpful, but little better than just looking up a recipe. You’d have to let them know that they can find multiple variants of recipes and have it rank them, compare them, and produce a summary of the most popular types. By now they’ve stopped listening and have gone to the grocery store to buy a chocolate cream pie and you’re standing there hoping they will give you a piece.
In summary, I wish I had some pie. What was the question?
I don’t know, it seems to me that most people know how to ask a question or make a request. It’s not that different.
You don’t actually use AI in any professional capacity, huh
Yeah, you’re probably right. Probably don’t do anything with it at all, never touched it, don’t understand how it works either. You, on the other hand are probably a seasoned LLM engineer. Shameful of me to not understand that.
So defensive
cool, cool…Hey Reese which LLM’s have you invested in that you’re now advocating more women utilize them? OpenAI? Anthropic?
She’s not stupid. She’s trying to get a return on investment.
She doesn’t need to be invested in any particular LLM company. If she only bought a world ETF she’s already heavily invested in LLMs.
Neither of those are public yet.
She might have enough money to be privately invested. If not directly, through a hedge fund or rich pals.
Isn’t she famous for being an early actor who became an investor, like Like the Punk’d/70s show guy.
She has hundreds of millions of dollars. She can be invested in whatever she wants.
I don’t think that’s the argument being had.
She might have enough money to be privately invested.
Seems like they are unsure, I was clarifying that she does indeed have the money.
I seriously tried looking for a connection with her portfolio’s available online, she seems clean and genuinely just advocating woman to use it.
That’s what it looks like right now, at least in public view.Don’t blame anyone in the slightest for the cynicism though in the current atmosphere.E: Welp, there goes my optimism.
That is also what it looked like back in 2022 when she partnered with World of Women to release NFT’s.
“While the crypto and NFT space is largely dominated by men, there are inspiring leaders like World of Women creating incredible communities for women during this massive shift for media and technology,”
Ugh, I seriously appreciate you ruining my optimism.
Crypto also trades in lockstep with Nvidia which essentially THE AI company now. Coefficient of like ~.8
Even if your unfounded accusation was true, do you think her ROI would change depending on what she says to variety? She is not stupid. You? I have my doubts…
Yes actually, having a celebrity speak favorably about a company to boost sales and/or stock value is a thing, and owning stock in a company is an obvious incentive for a person to want to boost that stock’s value, fucking duh
Openai’s valuation is at 30B dollars and illiterate farmer at the end of the world knows what it is. If you think whatever RW tells pop culture magazine makes a dent in it, one way or the other, you need to recalibrate your tinfoil hat. Fucking duh.
Valuation based on fantastical quantities of bullshit, growing public awareness that bubble will pop sooner rather than later, extremely plausible that tech companies would enlist celebrities to help prop their scheme up as long as they can, cry about it
cry about it
You are the one crying about it, i am laughing at you ;)
Oh hey, i just found i am wasting my time talking to .ml asshole and genocide denier. Fuck off and bye.
I deny genocides that are fictional
in unrelated news, washed up actor invests her nest egg in AI companies.
washed up? What are you talking about? She’s been the lead on two different, highly rated, shows for nearly a decade now. And that’s discounting her decades prior of accolades.
But here’s the real problem, you jump to call her “washed up”, she’s only 49. Is Brian Cranston washed up? Was Pachino? Calling a female actor “washed up” because she’s older with a long career just exudes and perpetuates the culture pushing out women as they age.
Just because YOU stopped paying attention to her doesn’t make her washed up. Sorry she’s not the bangable 20something year old “Legally Blonde” anymore. Say what you want about her hot take on AI, that’s fair, but don’t normalize your misogyny as part of it.
Ignoring everything else, “washed up” only means someone has lost their previous high status. It has nothing to do with age. You can be a washed up child actor.
hilarious. JFC…The Morning Show?
She’s washed up and investing in AI, while simultaneously insulting women with real jobs by telling them their jobs are bullshit.
I mean, you said yourself she’s working on TV. It’s definitely a step down from the height of her career, and it looks like I’ve never even heard of her most recent show. Pacino is definitely in washed up territory, I haven’t heard anything about him since Jack and Jill or maybe that weird de-aged Netflix movie. Cranston is different in that he’s primarily a TV actor whose work has only become more respected over his career, although apart from the Malcolm reboot I haven’t heard much from him, so perhaps he is in the process of becoming washed. It’s all a relative thing and I don’t think misogyny played as much of a role in this comment as you’re arguing.
EDIT: Reworded my last sentence because misogyny is definitely a huge problem in Hollywood, I just didn’t appreciate you jumping down comment OP’s throat.
The TV shows being a step down from movies opinion went away years ago with the growth of prestige television.
Staying ahead of the game to avoid becoming Reese Withoutherspoon.
Women tend to dominate care positions, nursing, teaching, and child care. None of them are going to be touched by AI, other than massive head aches caused in teaching kids to lazy to learn. Outside of those, women are in no different position than men when facing automation.
Attack the problem not one another.
I understand advocating for women but this is a worker VRs the rich problem. Not a woman, bend so you can get a job problem.
