Comment by irthomasthomas
20 hours ago
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.
20 hours ago
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.)
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.
Requiring only simple prompts surely sells better. I would not assume the documentation provided by OpenAI is totally unbiased and independent of business goals.
I find it surprising that you think documentation issues are “extraordinary”.
You have read literally any documentation before, right?
1 reply →
I mean, OpenAI not only tested the model, they literally trained the model. Training a model involves developing evaluations for the model. It’s a gargantuan effort. I’m fairly certain that OpenAI is the authority on how to prompt o1.