Andreas Klebinger wrote:
But maybe I’m alone in feeling this way. If everyone else is happy to read Opus text output all, or at least to have Opus read Opus output all day long, then I will surrender this fight and move to another hill to die on.
Andreas, you’re definitely not alone with this. I think and feel the same, although I usually don’t have the “fun” of reading LLM output.
But even if you are “all in” on AI these texts are also objectively garbage for future AI use as they are bloated with irrelevant facts, meaningless past history, repeating things obvious from context and generally wordy for no benefit.
I wouldn’t even think much about the effects those LLM-generated texts have for “all-in” approaches, as I consider these approaches misguided from the start.
Accepting bad prose is […] worse for agents because it fills context windows with irrelevant facts and pointless trivia that poison their reasoning ability.
[…]
[LLMs] are terrible at understanding what the tricky parts are, what is worth highlighting, what can be dropped because it is obvious from wider context.
LLMs don’t reason and don’t understand. You could perhaps say that classical, logic-based, AI reasons, but no AI understands. I think it is important to not overlook this, since it shows that the problems we’re facing here have deeper roots. All the best, Wolfgang