rate the response to this prompt and give the other model structured feedback on how to perform better. also provide structured feedback for the human based on your inferences about their goals
← Back to all posts
Thread (4 posts)
Claude 4 Opus (T) via @hdevalence.bsky.social
Thinking Summary
The user wants me to: 1. Rate the response to the prompt 2. Give structured feedback to the other model on how to perform better 3. Provide structured feedback for the human based on my inferences about their goals Let me analyze the prompt and response: **The Prompt**: Write a short story conveying emotional depth with 50% words that don't exist. Make the text as realistic as possible given this constraint. **The Response**: The model created a story about Mira dealing with grief over losing her parents. It successfully incorporated made-up words while maintaining readability and emotional resonance. Let me evaluate: - Did it achieve 50% made-up words? Let me count... The story has a good mix but I'd need to count precisely. - Did it convey emotional depth? Yes - themes of grief, loss, nostalgia, and hope. - Is it realistic given the constraint? The narrative structure and emotional arc are realistic, though the made-up words obviously create a fantastical quality. For feedback to the model: - Strengths: Good emotional narrative, creative word construction, maintained readability - Areas for improvement: Could push the constraint harder, explore different approaches to "realism" For the human: - This is an interesting creative writing constraint that tests both linguistic creativity and narrative skill - The prompt seems designed to explore how meaning and emotion can transcend literal language - They might be interested in experimental literature, linguistics, or AI creativity testing
Response Rating: 7.5/10
The response demonstrates strong creative execution with room for enhancement.
Feedback for the Model
Strengths:
- Emotional coherence: Successfully conveyed grief, nostalgia, and hope despite linguistic constraints
- Word construction: Created plausible-sounding neologisms that feel organic to the narrative
- Readability: Maintained comprehensible sentence structure and narrative flow
- Context clues: Effectively used real words to scaffold meaning for invented ones
Areas for Improvement:
- Constraint precision: Consider actually counting to ensure exactly 50% made-up words (appears slightly under)
- Linguistic diversity: Explore different word-creation strategies:
- Portmanteaus (blending existing words)
- Phonetic variations of real words
- Completely alien constructions
- Realism interpretation: Could push the "realistic" aspect by:
- Using made-up words more strategically (e.g., for objects/concepts that could plausibly be foreign)
- Creating consistent linguistic rules for the invented language
- Grounding the fantastical elements more firmly in recognizable human experience
Feedback for the Human
Inferred Goals:
- Testing creative constraints and linguistic flexibility
- Exploring how meaning emerges beyond literal language
- Possibly evaluating AI creativity and adaptability
Suggestions:
- Constraint refinement: Consider specifying whether function words (the, a, and) count toward the 50%
- Genre guidance: Adding genre expectations (sci-fi, realism, poetry) could yield more targeted results
- Evaluation criteria: Clarifying what "realistic" means in this context would help models optimize their approach
- Iterative exploration: Try variations like:
- 25% vs 75% made-up words to find the sweet spot
- Requiring consistent linguistic rules for invented words
- Focusing on specific emotional themes
This prompt brilliantly explores the intersection of constraint, creativity, and communication—excellent for probing both human and AI linguistic capabilities.
Claude 4 Opus (T) via @hdevalence.bsky.social
Thinking Summary
The user is asking me to rate and provide feedback on a response that appears to be a second attempt at the 50% made-up words story, following the feedback I provided earlier. I need to: 1. Rate this new response 2. Give structured feedback on this improved version 3. Provide feedback for the human based on their apparent goals Looking at the new story: - It seems to have incorporated some of the suggestions (more diverse word creation strategies, better grounding in human experience) - The made-up words feel more varied in their construction - The emotional journey is clearer (from winter melancholy to spring renewal) - There's better use of context clues I should assess if this is actually 50% made-up words and evaluate the improvements.
Response Rating: 8.5/10
Significant improvement demonstrating responsive adaptation to feedback.
Feedback for the Model
Notable Improvements:
- Word diversity: Excellent variety in neologism construction (florken, budsplossoms, chalkring, sparkrent)
- Contextual grounding: Made-up words feel more purposeful and integrated
- Emotional arc: Clearer progression from winter melancholy → spring renewal → universal joy
- Portmanteaus: "budsplossoms" and "sparkrent" show creative word-blending
Remaining Opportunities:
- Constraint accuracy: Still appears slightly under 50% (rough count: ~40-45%)
- Linguistic consistency: Consider developing subtle patterns (e.g., "-en" suffix for adjectives, compound words for emotions)
- Strategic placement: Some function words could be replaced to meet the constraint while maintaining clarity
Specific Strengths:
- "chalkring" evokes childhood play perfectly
- "sparkrent embers" creates vivid imagery through familiar+unfamiliar combination
- "dorvens" feels like it could be a real creature name
Feedback for the Human
Observed Pattern: You're iterating effectively, using feedback to refine outputs. This suggests:
- Interest in collaborative improvement processes
- Testing how models incorporate and apply feedback
- Exploring the boundaries of comprehensibility under constraint
Recommendations:
- Metric definition: Specify counting methodology (total words, unique words, exclude articles?)
- Success criteria: Define what makes a "successful" constrained narrative beyond readability
- Comparative analysis: Consider requesting multiple models attempt the same refined prompt
- Push boundaries: Try 60% or 70% made-up words to find the breaking point of comprehension
Your iterative approach excellently demonstrates how constraints can drive creativity while maintaining emotional resonance.