Comment by jmcdonald-ut
3 months ago
The article links out to OpenAI's advice on prompting, but it also claims:
OpenAI does publish advice on prompting o1,
but we find it incomplete, and in a sense you can
view this article as a “Missing Manual” to lived
experience using o1 and o1 pro in practice.
To that end, the article does seem to contradict some of the advice OpenAI gives. E.g., the article recommends stuffing the model with as much context as possible... while OpenAI's docs note to include only the most relevant information to prevent the model from overcomplicating its response.
I haven't used o1 enough to have my own opinion.
Those are contradictory. Openai claim that you don't need a manual, since O1 performs best with simple prompts. The author claims it performs better with more complex prompts, but provides no evidence.
The claims are not contradictory.
They are bimodal.
Bottom 20% of users can't prompt because they don't understand what they're looking for or couldn't describe it well if they did. This model handles them asking briefly, then breaks it down, seeks implications, and prompts itself. OpenAI's How to Prompt is for them.
Top 20% of users understand what they're looking for and how to frame and contextualize well. The article is for them.
The middle 60%, YMMV. (But in practice, they're probably closer to bottom 20 in not knowing how to get the most from LLMs, so the bottom 20 guide saves typing.)
I'm not saying it won't work. I'm just asking for evidence. You don't think its strange that none of the authors or promoters of this idea provided any evals? Not even a small sample of prompt/response pairs that demonstrate the benefit of this method?
In case you missed it
The last line is important
But extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Openai tested the model for months and concluded that simple prompts are best. The author claims that complex prompts are best, but cites no evidence.
4 replies →