I am always very cordial in my sessions. It's just more pleasant and it's a habit I want to habituate.
Great work!
Now let's...
Now can you help me...I think it also produces better results. I have noticed that result quality is extremely sensitive to both the framing and tone of what I say. For example "X is the wrong approach, rework that" versus "will X have any performance implications". Personally I find that steering it towards an exploratory academic tone tends to produce better outcomes.
While unfortunate, I think that's more or less expected since much of the training data is human generated text. Looked at that way, would you rather contract the average regular on twitter or the average author of papers published in CS journals? (Somehow that ended up sounding eerily like summoning in a high fantasy setting.)
i also prompt for "seek out unknown unknowns that i wouldn't have included in my guidance".
This seems to be quite the opposite from some here on hn that take the agent-do-my-bidding approach.
I will say, my agentic workflow is about 70/30 split pure word discussions and plans vs code gen. So it makes sense for what i value.
No one apologises to a potato being peeled, nor compliments it for doing a great job being mashed.
This is not about llm sentience. this is about the habit and skill of communication.
Practicing communications skills with LLMs I can get, but asserting that people who don't are playing god? Getting off on power?
What actually happens when confronted with harsh negativity depends on the training of the model. Sanitized closed models will shut you down or get you banned. Community finetunes of open models might start begging you for more, daddy.