Post

Very proud to share this new work led by the amazing Marlou Rasenberg (not on here), with Joel Fischer and me doi.org/10.5281/zeno... We use #EMCA methods to study empirically how LLM users shoulder the burden of solving sequential trouble and end up restructuring their own aims & activities

17 reposts48 likes

We identify a set of practices we call 'pre-emptive prompting', "through which users creatively circumvent the system’s lack of action recognition and action projection". Users stumble upon these through trial and error, in exchanges like this:

While much work in so-called 'prompt engineering' obsesses over the perfect prompt (Andreessen's monster prompt comes to mind), we find that real-life prompting practices are sequentially organized, feature repurposed patterns of human interaction, and result in users adjusting expectations & aims

As we conclude, > [LLM] users encounter a fundamental asymmetry: they must singlehandedly supply much of the sequential structure that is ordinarily co-constructed by multiple participants ... This hidden labour challenges accounts of LLM use that focus on performance and optimization

I can just see no logical inference except that a tool that mimics thought in language without being it will always and inevitably increase/generate workload for any mind participating, and the more convincing the fakery the greater the workload increase.