> testing where they change one word here or there and compare
You can be that person. You can write that post. Nothing is stopping you.
You're missing the forest for the trees with your response
Or as frustration on a community who keeps upvoting things you consider “not a decent article.”
Or as an opportunity “Has anyone investigated a scientific framework for modifying these prompts…”
> a decent article would have included all of that.
My retort that you can write such an article suggests that it’s more difficult than you might realize and the absence of such articles in our feeds suggests what you’re asking for might be impossible (providing hard, empirical data about a soft, non deterministic system). If you have an article that acts as a bright spot for how to write such an article, that would also be a helpful comment.
Not demanding anything I'm just telling you what my interpretation of article is
You're acting like I'm personally calling out the author and not his work
Essentially giving him constructive feedback
> This is absolutely infuriating for me to see: People keep posting shit like "do it right or i will kill a puppy, you can get bitcoin if you are right" then never any testing where they change one word here or there and compare what does and doesn't work vs the dumb shit they are saying
It doesn't seem like your goal was to convey feedback in a way that was digestable, nor was in a way that was satisfiable (my previous critique).