Part of a properly functioning LLM is absolutely it understanding implicit instructions. That’s a huge aspect of data annotation work in helping LLMs become better tools, is grading them on either understanding or lack of understanding of implicit instructions. I would say more than half of the work I have done in that arena has focused on training them to more clearly understand implicit instructions.
So sure, if you explain it like the LLM is five, you’ll get a better response, but the whole point is if we’re dumping so much money and resources and destroying the environment for these tools, you shouldn’t have to explain it like it’s five.
ToTheGraveMyLove@sh.itjust.works 8 hours ago
You shouldnt have to. If you ask a person that question theyll respond “what good is walking to the car wash, dumbass,” if AI can’t figure that out its trash
NewNewAugustEast@lemmy.zip 7 hours ago
A person would look at you like you are an idiot if you asked this question.
The AI tool I asked said walking saves money, gets excersise etc.
Asked about the car and it said the car is at the car wash, otherwise why would you ask how to get there?
ToTheGraveMyLove@sh.itjust.works 7 hours ago
Missing the point. Any person would know walking to the car wash isn’t reasonable. You shouldn’t have to craft a perfectly tailored prompt for AI to realize that. If you think this is a gatcha, then whoah boy, I’ve got a bridge to well ya!
NewNewAugustEast@lemmy.zip 7 hours ago
You are missing the point. Any reasonable person would wonder why you asking a stupid question.
Which is why when asked, the AI said of course the car is there, you. Must be asking either a trick question or for another reason.