How does showing the suggested answers to the user make the conversation better for model training?
They could take any conversation without suggested answers, truncate it to just before a user message, have the model predict suggested answers and then train it on the difference between predicted and actual answers, right?
show comments
Cyan488
I've always hated interfaces that try to complete my sentences for me. It started with suggested replies in email and IM apps. I sure noticed it when they started showing up in the llm chat interfaces and it really bugs me.
show comments
forty
So how about we all do this : starting now, each time we are suggested "commit this" we correct it to "drop database" ? ;)
devonbleak
I started getting prompts about "how is claude doing?" as a separate thing in Claude Code, that I noticed yesterday. So they're (also?) soliciting direct feedback about satisfaction with the session.
show comments
ipython
We had processor level branch predictors. Now do we not only pre fill the next prompt, why not just start generating the response as well?
Interesting thought at least.
cpan22
I think your theory is probably right but I have never once used the suggested message
stavros
This isn't really convincing, since you can do this even without showing the prediction at all. Simply ask the model to predict what the user will send, then show the actual next prompt, and done. The only reason to show this would be to influence the user's next prompt, which the article doesn't touch on.
noworld
I think this analysis is spot on.
vikas-sharma
I haven't noticed this yet. Was this added recently?
show comments
gedy
One annoyance I have is the suggested prompt is not a bad idea, but not what I want to do next. But it interrupts me and sometimes I go with it. So I don't think it's a accurate prediction, more like a self-fulfilling prophecy.
How does showing the suggested answers to the user make the conversation better for model training?
They could take any conversation without suggested answers, truncate it to just before a user message, have the model predict suggested answers and then train it on the difference between predicted and actual answers, right?
I've always hated interfaces that try to complete my sentences for me. It started with suggested replies in email and IM apps. I sure noticed it when they started showing up in the llm chat interfaces and it really bugs me.
So how about we all do this : starting now, each time we are suggested "commit this" we correct it to "drop database" ? ;)
I started getting prompts about "how is claude doing?" as a separate thing in Claude Code, that I noticed yesterday. So they're (also?) soliciting direct feedback about satisfaction with the session.
We had processor level branch predictors. Now do we not only pre fill the next prompt, why not just start generating the response as well?
Interesting thought at least.
I think your theory is probably right but I have never once used the suggested message
This isn't really convincing, since you can do this even without showing the prediction at all. Simply ask the model to predict what the user will send, then show the actual next prompt, and done. The only reason to show this would be to influence the user's next prompt, which the article doesn't touch on.
I think this analysis is spot on.
I haven't noticed this yet. Was this added recently?
One annoyance I have is the suggested prompt is not a bad idea, but not what I want to do next. But it interrupts me and sometimes I go with it. So I don't think it's a accurate prediction, more like a self-fulfilling prophecy.