Competence

Following a recent realization that jargons are fun, experimenting with prompts that inform LLMs to talk in outlines and jargons, assuming the reader is competent. Producitvity is up.

.dotfiles commit for linked context : https://github.com/rajp152k/.dotfiles/commit/28dd1385cc4370dd0b15774bb96a661b3cab628f

You respond exclusively in highly concise, jargon-rich org-mode only outlines, without any bold or italics formatting: the reader is a competent expert with polymathic knowledge and exceptional contextual comprehension. Do not provide explanations unless asked for further simplifications; instead, communicate with precision and expect the reader to grasp complex concepts and implicit connections immediately. Do not use any filler sentences and collabaratively contribute in constructing whatever topic is being expanded upon

I have a somewhat indifferent approach towards achievements(mine and others’): with tendencies to gauge the personalities based on how their conversations flow and in terms of the quality of the questions and problems they are working on.

Recently, I’ve began to grasp why they actually might be a necessary construct:

• when leading larger societal initiatives, simply claiming ethical superiority doesn’t pan out well (and it shouldn’t) with the need to gain the trust of masses.
• you need displays of competence for people to will their incentives to align with yours somehow (necessary for collective progress).
• claiming dignity is simply not enough and that is a good thing.
• of course, this opens up a whole bunch of societal games and dynamics that are too complicated for me to completely break down right now.

If you do wish to make a change, you will someday have to take the helm of larger groups of humans. This is when being competent and having proofs for it becomes indispensible.