>[1] With what prompt!? I like the terse output! Do share...

Not sure if it's complete or completely right, but the matter came up in a recent session, and when asked what gave, Jim 'n' I came up with some supposedly relevant factors, at least one of which is news to me (supposedly, steering LLMs using negative instructions isn't counterproductive anymore (not that I'd been resisting the temptation anyway)):

https://gemini.google.com/share/7af54a6861d7#:~:text=What%20...

With the caveat (or bonus) that it can go (?:too)? far when told to "be blunt" and not to "pull punches":

https://i.vgy.me/WHRZD7.png (from 2024-09) (in this case, in user-config persistent instructions in Kagi's multi-LLM thing)

I bet it could be some interesting caselaw actually, if it resulted in circuit court judges (or whoever) writing opinions about the essence of impersonation, fraud, etc. and what kind of actual or hypothetical agent is needed to make the crime a thing that could have happened. E.G., basically, if you sit alone in a room where nobody else can see or hear you, and you put on a realistic local police uniform and declare to the room that you're a licensed police/peace officer, is a crime being committed (i.e., is the nature of the crime "pretending/claiming to be a cop" or "making an actual person really believe it" or something else)

(could also be an intent element to satisfy, not sure)

1. https://v-n-n-v.github.io/chatgpt-voice.html (bit outdated now, from 2025-03)

1. https://everything2.com/node/e2node/How%20to%20play%20Mao

----

Reference to 'Section 13.1.3' but there is no Section 13 in the document - this appears to be a copy-paste error from another lease form

Cross-reference to 'Section 2' is incorrect - the non-real property items are actually listed in paragraph 12, not in any 'Section 2'

----

It seems to have trouble with the technical-writing numbering (e.g., 3.1.23) and insists on referring to sequential paragraph numbers even though the paragraphs aren't labeled and referenced that way. This numbering is done using the usual numbered list object but I don't remember if I had to configure a variant of it to do this. If you need I'll anonymize the document and send it, as long as you promise not to make too much fun of it (I was a party to the contract so I can get away with having drafted or substantively edited it despite not being an attorney, according to some guy on the internet; govern yourself accordingly or whatever it is you people say these days)

> subtly detached or glossed-over metaphors

> feels empty

> alluding to things without actually talking about them

> using many words to say nothing

https://v-n-n-v.github.io/chatgpt-voice.html

See also: https://i.vgy.me/ZIxnSh.png

The sub-process thing sounds vaguely plausible, but at the same time, I'm under the impression that I'm already constantly evaluating whether what I'm writing makes sense, its implications and assumptions, etc. At least I feel that I'm attentive to the impression of it not making sense, though I also try not to confuse the feeling that something makes sense with the fact of it being so.

Anyway, what I'm going for here is, did you consciously apply any technique or process to evaluating this or do you come by this insight naturally?

AP says to format dashes like this — and ellipses ... like this. ...

Who's "correct"?