[bitbuilder]

I find myself hoping between o1 and Sonnet pretty frequently these days, and my personal observation is that the quality of output from o1 scales more directly to the quality of the prompting you're giving it.

In a way it almost feels like it's become too good at following instructions and simply just takes your direction more literally. It doesn't seem to take the initiative of going the extra mile of filling in the blanks from your lazy input (note: many would see this as a good thing). Claude on the other hand feels more intuitive in discerning intent from a lazy prompt, which I may be prone to offering it at times when I'm simply trying out ideas.

However, if I take the time to write up a well thought out prompt detailing my expectations, I find I much prefer the code o1 creates. It's smarter in its approach, offers clever ideas I wouldn't have thought of, and generally cleaner.

Or put another way, I can give Sonnet a lazy or detailed prompt and get a good result, while o1 will give me an excellent result with a well thought out prompt.

What this boils down to is I find myself using Sonnet while brainstorming ideas, or when I simply don't know how I want to approach a problem. I can pitch it a feature idea the same way a product owner might pitch an idea to an engineer, and then iterate through sensible and intuitive ways of looking at the problem. Once I get a handle on how I'd like to implement a solution, I type up a spec and hand it off to o1 to crank out the code I'd intend to implement.

[spaceman_2020]

Have you found any tool or guide for writing better o1 prompts? This isn’t the first time I’ve heard this about o1 but no one seems to know how to prompt it

[jules]

Can you solve this by putting your lazy prompt through GPT-4o or Sonnet 3.6 and asking it to expand the prompt to a full prompt for o1?