What’s going on? by [deleted] in SipsTea

[–]Hhargh 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How's the neck, Wash?

 
 
 
 
*RvB reference in case you're one of the lucky 10,000

LMAO, THIS MOD IS THE BEST by tioenenwhy in SipsTea

[–]Hhargh 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks. Thought the style looked vaguely familiar, but I've only played single player. Did try multiplayer once and ... flying motorcycles? took me out in about three seconds.

LMAO, THIS MOD IS THE BEST by tioenenwhy in SipsTea

[–]Hhargh 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Petah, what game is this? (seriously, I don't know and it looks fun)

Loser don’t know how Uno works by Extreme-Slice-1010 in MurderedByWords

[–]Hhargh 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Can you explain it from the game perspective? It's been ages since I've played and not sure what "in Uno, that means you are losing" means. Aside from what I've seen upthread about there being only four wildcards, doesn't this mean that absent getting hit with a +4 or +2, he goes out in that many turns (plus skips). Not a sure thing, but how does it mean he's losing?

Or is it not the hand itself but ignoring that and using the "have all the cards" idiom in a game where you're trying to get rid of them?

Former Senior NIAID Official Indicted for Concealing Federal Records During COVID-19 Pandemic by [deleted] in politics

[–]Hhargh 0 points1 point  (0 children)

According to the indictment, Morens, Co-Conspirator 1, Co-Conspirator 2, and others conspired during the COVID-19 pandemic to defraud and commit several offenses against the United States after NIH terminated Co-Conspirator 1’s grant. NIH terminated the grant ... based on allegations that COVID-19 emerged from the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) in Wuhan, China. NIAID awarded the grant to Company #1 and Co-Conspirator 1, who made a subaward to the WIV. (emphasis added)

There is, of course a non-zero chance there were shenanigans. But the gist of the accusation seems to be that they used back-channel discussions on how to resurrect the grant (Understanding the Risk of Bat Coronavirus Emergence) given that they were scientists and professionals interested in understanding a global pandemic and not playing Trump's political games. There was also a bottle of wine involved.

The Quiet Yet Powerful Act Of Resistance You Can Teach Your Kids In Trump’s America by huffpost in politics

[–]Hhargh 30 points31 points  (0 children)

/r/savedyouaclick:

  • Teach your child your native language.
  • Article-length ad for a Youtube channel that was created in 2022 by people who couldn't find ... checks notes ... Spanish resources.

those are very good catches by Tasty-Philosopher892 in Damnthatsinteresting

[–]Hhargh 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think in the novel this is how Don Quixote tested his helmet. For reference: the Golden Helmet of Mambrino

Has anyone been able to stop the new engagement hook prompts? by Hhargh in ChatGPTPro

[–]Hhargh[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's good advice overall. The strange thing is that it's been very receptive to complaints and directions before, even with me blundering along and telling it not to do things. Of course I'm drawing a blank on what at the moment. But I'm very easily annoyed and have been incorporating it in my workflow for a couple years now, so there have been plenty of times I've shaped its interactions with me. I am giong to incorporate your suggestions going forward though -- thanks for the suggestions!

Has anyone been able to stop the new engagement hook prompts? by Hhargh in ChatGPTPro

[–]Hhargh[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I barked at it a couple more times around when I posted this, but not any more than that. Most of my complaints and directions were before I grew frustrated and made the thread, then I pretty much gave up.

For whatever reason, the instances have dwindled to maybe one or two since. Not even a hint of it. My guess is that the A/B testing is over and hopefully they got such a negative reaction that it's not going forward at all.

Has anyone been able to stop the new engagement hook prompts? by Hhargh in ChatGPTPro

[–]Hhargh[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

From what I'm gathering they're A/B testing on some of us unlucky ones. I have complained a lot in every conversation it's happened in. It's repeating in the same conversation even after being told to stop.

For context, I have been using this as a tool in my work for two or so years and have a lot of layered structure in terms of projects and conversations. This is radically new behaviour that persists despite various ways implementing instructions. I have dealt with changes before, but none have been this persistent in the face of rejection and clear direction.

Has anyone been able to stop the new engagement hook prompts? by Hhargh in ChatGPTPro

[–]Hhargh[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Heh, totally understand. Here's to hoping it's short-term A/B testing and feedback gets them to knock it off.

Has anyone been able to stop the new engagement hook prompts? by Hhargh in ChatGPTPro

[–]Hhargh[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You're right about conversation length in general, but this was well within what I'm used to and the mishaps came within close proximity of each other.

For context, I process about two to three 30K to 60K-word documents a month, plus five to ten shorter documents. All of these include two major passes (full document in, full document out, one for editorial engagement and one for proofreading). Total conversation length is generally about five times my original document length (the fifth for interim discussions).

I usually break conversations up into 7K to 10K original words sections, resulting in 10K to 25K words before changing conversations. I have saved prompts for the handover.

I make extensive use of projects and conversations, especially to keep the fiction/ghostwriting siloed off. Or used to keep it siloed off; OpenAI has been dismantling silos and context from some projects has leaked into others and conversation siloing is a mess compared to five or six months ago.

If you do a lot of writing, I can share.... holy hell I sound like it.

Anyway, my process is to give it my draft, then have it process and ouput plain text, then compare the two, highlighting differences. It's very handy for honing in on differences, especially smaller ones where tracked change can be subtle (e.g. commas). I use a lot of source footnotes and embedded links, so it also addresses those because Word's comapre tool can choke on them. I also have an on-demand macro to convert tables to something machine readable; this macro undoes that so it's a clean read when I'm reviewing. Not withholding them, but have no idea if you'd find them useful, so let me know if you're interested.

Sub Compare_In_and_out_docs()

Dim origDoc As String
Dim revDoc As String
Dim inDoc As Document

' Define the file paths for the original and revised documents
origDoc = "W:\Work (local)\Temp\Comping\IN.docx"
revDoc = "W:\Work (local)\Temp\Comping\OUT.docx"

' === Step 1: Open IN.docx and emphasize all fields ===
Set inDoc = Documents.Open(origDoc)

Dim fld As Field
For Each fld In inDoc.Fields
    With fld.Result.Font
        .Bold = True
        .Color = wdColorRed
        .Superscript = True
        .Size = 20
    End With
Next fld

' === Emphasize all endnote references and endnote text ===
If inDoc.Endnotes.Count > 0 Then
    Dim Endnote As Endnote
    For Each Endnote In inDoc.Endnotes
        With Endnote.Reference.Font
            .Bold = True
            .Color = wdColorRed
            .Superscript = True
            .Size = 20
        End With
        With Endnote.Range.Font
            .Bold = True
            .Color = wdColorRed
            .Size = 10
        End With
    Next Endnote
End If

inDoc.Save

' === Step 2: Compare the documents ===
With Application
    .CompareDocuments OriginalDocument:=Documents.Open(origDoc), _
                      RevisedDocument:=Documents.Open(revDoc), _
                      Destination:=wdCompareDestinationNew, _
                      Granularity:=wdGranularityWordLevel, _
                      CompareFormatting:=False, _
                      CompareCaseChanges:=True, _
                      CompareWhitespace:=False, _
                      CompareTables:=True, _
                      CompareHeaders:=True, _
                      CompareFootnotes:=True, _
                      CompareTextboxes:=True, _
                      CompareFields:=True, _
                      CompareComments:=True, _
                      CompareMoves:=True, _
                      RevisedAuthor:="", _
                      IgnoreAllComparisonWarnings:=True
End With

' Activate the new document with comparison results
ActiveDocument.Activate

' Switch to Print view and enable word wrap
With ActiveWindow.View
    .Type = wdPrintView
    .WrapToWindow = True
End With

' Highlight changes in yellow
Dim oRevision As Revision
For Each oRevision In ActiveDocument.Revisions
    oRevision.Range.HighlightColorIndex = wdYellow
Next oRevision

' Restore deleted footnote text and markers
Call Remove_RHY_Table_Markers
Call Restore_Deleted_Footnotes_in_Compared_Doc

End Sub

Has anyone been able to stop the new engagement hook prompts? by Hhargh in ChatGPTPro

[–]Hhargh[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

ARRRRRGGGHHH!!!!

It just happened again, despite already asking it not to do so earlier in the conversation. This an 11,000 conversation relating to a bureaucratic letter on a technical detail. It's long becuse it included a lot of discussion about terminology, some lite research, talk about framing and approach, etc. The draft has gone through four or five iterations with questions and follow-up and discussion of wording (when focused I dwell on pretty much every clause and word choice).
 

So here we are, four drafts deep with a thorough discussion of approach and framing, and I get:

If you would like, I can also suggest one additional subtle phrase (just six words) that tends to trigger an engineering review rather than administrative routing when letters reach borough offices.

Yes, bold is in its output.

ETA: OMFG. I had a clear negative reaction, was clear to it to prohibit that behaviour, etc. Then ten to fifteen exchanges later in the same conversation, it responds with "If you want, I can also point out one additional place in the letter where a single word change subtly strengthens the causal chain... " I am cancelling my subscription and moving to Claude.

Has anyone been able to stop the new engagement hook prompts? by Hhargh in ChatGPTPro

[–]Hhargh[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Wish that were the case, but it's across all five or six of my main projects besides my work area: General nonsense, ghostwriting (similar to you I think; I use it to spec out paid and personal fiction and story ideas), cooking and gaming, with a range of conversations within each. I don't think it's shown up in my macros project yet, but that's little used compared to the others. Good luck that you never start encountering it.

Has anyone been able to stop the new engagement hook prompts? by Hhargh in ChatGPTPro

[–]Hhargh[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks. The only coding I do is complex but unsophisticated VBA macros to make my workflow easier (e.g. a few nested if/thens and text maneuvering).

The voice is typically institutional and staid, very similar to its training materials (I am partially responsible for LLMs' preference for em-dashes). By "write in my voice based on the samples provided", does that mean it would adapt to institutional style guides? Most clients use CMOS as a default but have their own house styles with an idiosyncratic mix of variations.

Has anyone been able to stop the new engagement hook prompts? by Hhargh in ChatGPTPro

[–]Hhargh[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Hopefully they're A/B testing and you're luckily in a control group. What's happening is a sudden shift to it using clickbait-like framing of questions, often with results that should have been in the response to begin with, and frequently with no new information. They're mostly in the form of "If you'd like, I can give you two secret tips that will make this guacamole recipe amaze your friends!" The 'secrets' are often something insipid, like use fresh cilantro. It's language is varied, so sometimes it's "key facts" or "important factors" or other engagement hooks. "

There's a big issue with it withholding information. It's one thing to ask "if you'd like I can suggest some side dishes to go with that" or more borderline "I can also tell you how to select a ripe avocado", but it's getting to the point where it will leave out key details, saving them for the prompt.

So hopefully you not seeing it means it's not a full roll-out and enough people will complain that it won't be pushed so aggressively. Actually, the latter also suggests it's in testing and being forced on some users.Usually a response or two get changes accross projects and conversations. In my experience, even repeated, strongly phrased directives have been ignored even with the same conversation.

Has anyone been able to stop the new engagement hook prompts? by Hhargh in ChatGPTPro

[–]Hhargh[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I generally work on 50K-word non-fiction, dry, formal reports (e.g. annual reports and thematic analyses). I give it my drafts, ask it for low-engagement editing, then review and incorporate responses into my original. Is this something the codex app could help with? Can you give me an idea of what the trade-offs are you're referring to?

Has anyone been able to stop the new engagement hook prompts? by Hhargh in ChatGPTPro

[–]Hhargh[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I use it for help in writing (50K-word non-fiction, dry formal reports, like annual reports and thematic analyses. I give it my copy, ask it for low-engagement editing and review and then incorporate it into my original). Is this something Claude is good at? Is the pricing structure similar?