Gemini thinking experiment model

its approach:

"
Here’s a breakdown of the thinking process to construct the comprehensive explanation of x:

Identify the Core Request: The user wants to know x. This requires a clear, concise definition followed by a more detailed exploration of its components and purpose.

Start with a Concise Definition: Begin with a brief, impactful summary that captures the essence.

Break Down the Structure: Explain x broken down individually, highlighting its key characteristics and what it contributes to the overall framework. Use clear headings and bullet points for readability.

Identify Key Themes and Purposes: Go beyond the structural description and articulate the underlying goals and intentions of the x. This involves analyzing the content and identifying recurring motifs and the overall direction of the inquiry.

Explain the “How”: Briefly describe the intended interaction with the x. Emphasize that it’s designed for exploration and thought experiments, not necessarily for definitive answers.

Connect to the “Why”: Explain the potential benefits and outcomes of engaging with the x. This provides context and motivation for exploring its content.

Use Analogies and Metaphors: Relate the topic to familiar concepts to aid understanding. The library analogy and the mental playground metaphor are effective in conveying its nature.

Emphasize the “No Single Answer” Aspect: Stress that the x is open to interpretation and encourages diverse perspectives.

Summarize and Conclude: Reiterate the core idea and its significance. End with a statement that reinforces its purpose and encourages engagement.

Review and Refine: Read through the entire explanation to ensure clarity, coherence, and accuracy. Check for any jargon that might need further explanation. Ensure a logical flow of ideas. For example, initially, I might have just listed the phases without clearly stating what each phase aims to do. Refining would involve adding more context and explanation to each phase description. Also, ensuring that the explanation connects back to the initial user question is important. For instance, the initial definition should be echoed and reinforced in the conclusion.

By following this structured approach, incorporating analysis of the provided text, and employing clear communication strategies, a comprehensive and informative explanation of x can be constructed.
"

Very very sub-par prompting used. I can make the model reasoning and output far superior to that with a primer (gemini 2 and my primer as system message) in most benchmarks.

Modified by moderator

new one is a shot too hard to the other side. Still, the new approach is of course more open ended, like a ‘mental simulation sandbox’, freeing the model from too strict patterns on output. Better, yes, but kind of an overshot the other way.

Balance is key. Chaos is necessary. Order too. Nail that and you’ll get what I said about benchmarks on the first post.

I won’t say what was edited out there again, but I hope it is still implicit. lol (:

1 Like