Bit of a mouthful, but how about just calling it "auto-regressive language modelling".
Feeding it stuff to auto-regress on is obviously your main control vector.
Apparently RL-trained models like rewards too. PHB's can use "you've gotta work all weekend, but you'll get comp time when it's fixed".
"Make no mistakes"
The tooling around isolation, logging, and real time security/anonomly detection for regular LLM laptop users is very immature right now. I expect that to change soon.
The alternative is extremely locked down models which is what Anthropic seems to want to do.
But if it's so obvious, then why are we still relying on it in the system prompt. It's just wasting context at this point.
my steel yield strength table is similarly not guaranteed to be correct for the piece of steel that I have in front of me.
The system prompt seems plausible, but in my experience they are much much much much longer and more verbose.
If you think the system is a tool and not an intelligent, conscious entity (I think you are correct in this), then you cannot reasonably think of input to that system as an attempt at persuasion, even if that input happens to consist of English prose. Treat it as a nondeterministic programming language, and the objection evaporates.
> not really being able to explain how the human brain does it's most amazing tricks and then we just replicated it while still not really understanding the emergent capabilities
I think you could say much the same about, say, a pacemaker. "Replicated" is overstating the case quite a bit.
> I don't know what we want to call this, but in my opinion, having to convince your tools is not computer science.
My vote is "machine psychology".
Messages comes in rate it and reject with hitting the model. Then you don’t need to fill the prompt with “please don’t do this”
I enjoy asking my grandkids why mirrors reflect left to right and not top to bottom.
Hold a written word in front of your eyes to read it.
Now flip it to the mirror to read the reflection:
Did you flip it horizontally? Then it reflected left-to-right.
Did you flip it vertically? Then it reflected top-to-bottom.
Someone saying that a mirror swaps left and right is comparing it to a photograph, and only because we, as bipedal creatures, really prefer to orient images of other humans with heads up.
This was my small "mind expansion moment" for today. Thanks!
This sub-thread is becoming unfairly more interesting than the main conversation at this point.
Nomenclature is just a convention of convenience and can be ever so judgemental.
Particle / anti-Particle ... way to lead the jury, hey?
What we do know is that when Bob walks up to a mirror he sees adastra22.
The glass is likely there to stop them touching and spawning a new universe.
And it would revolutionize our current understanding of physics to find out that p = p̄
- Do you think a live video, shown on a phone screen, of you, is "you"?
- Do you think a still photograph of you is "you"?
- Do you think a set of bytes representing that photograph (or video) digitally is "you"?
- Do you think a compressed version of that photograph is "you"? Is there a limit to how much I can size down the image or compress it until it's no longer "you"?
- Do you think the base-10 number equivalent to that digitized picture is also "you"? Can I memorize "you" if I learn all the digits of that number? Can I write "you" on a piece of paper from memory? Is Pi a person?
- There is a very large number of reflecting surfaces in the world. How many of you are there?
- Does the "you" in the mirror persist if you walk off the frame and can no longer see yourself in the mirror? What happened to him? Does he live in a left-handed world? What happens if I shatter or paint over the mirror?
- If I draw you, is my drawing "you"? Does the accuracy of the drawing influence whether it is really "you" or not? If so, then does the accuracy/quality of the mirror influence whether it is "you" or not in the reflection? Are "you" fatter or slimmer, depending if the mirror is warped?
- If you're standing far from the mirror, but I'm close to it and I can see "you", why can I talk or signal to you and you don't respond?
Not only that! Does the decimal representation of π (which is infinite in length) contain all persons who ever existed, and will ever exist? Since π itself is a known reason, but its decimal representation is infinite, it means π cannot contain itself. So if it can contain every person that ever existed, but can't contain itself (which could conceivably contain everyone), then what does that even mean?
Aaargghh.
Spot me after the next rain. I'll be in the color indigo, right above the pot of gold, waving back.
One half of one dimension less than a human. But sure looks convincing on the surface.
Suppose if we wanted to get philosophical it could go in the "ceci n'est pas une pipe" direction but I agree
AI is something else, as it should be.
Which is equivalent to
"We didn't replicate the human brain. We partially replicated its functionality."
In that sense, I guess at least LLMs are not infringeing on the kind of patents that would get the owners of AI labs hit by lightning.
Maybe we should be asking what our own "system prompts" are ?
- ~3rd century BCE : The invention of hydraulic engineering (eg aqueducs) in the 3rd century BCE led to the popularity of a hydraulic model of human intelligence, the idea that the flow of different fluids in the body accounted for both physical and mental functioning.
- Pre-Socratic Greece : The ancient Greeks saw the mind as a chariot pulled by horses of reason and emotion.
- 1500s-1600s: Automata powered by springs and gears had been devised, Descartes suggested that cerebral hydraulic automata produced behavior by powering "animal spirits" through the nerves.
- 1700s–1800s: The mind worked like clockwork.
- Industrial revolution (1800s) : In the industrial revolution, the mind was understood as a steam engine.
- Late 1800s : Hermann von Helmholtz compared the mind's workings to telegraphy and hydraulics; the brain was likened to a telegraph network or a complex switchboard
- 1895 : Sigmund Freud in 1895 described a Project for a Scientific Psychology using a crude neural network model and borrowed concepts from thermodynamics, speaking of psychic energy, pressure, and discharge, essentially a hydraulic model of the psyche.
- 1930s–present : "our brain is a computer"
- and 2022-now: "We are LLMs!"
I can't wait to become a quantum chip, an NFT, and so on, as new things arrive. It doesn't make any of those models accurate. They're just the metaphor of the day.
My personal opinion is that eventually we may just get advanced enough genetic engineering combined with brain / computer networks that the real A.I. will just be a brain like thing grown in a lab but more specialised. Or who knows - our own brains might have some quantum inner workings as well we are unaware of !
I would argue that the inventors of those past technologies were trying to replicate other things (movement, energy, pressure, pneuma, psyche, physis, whatever) that felt deeply human to them, and that in the zeitgeist of his time, Hero of Alexandria (1 BC) could also have said:
> I suppose you could argue that none of the stories of the past had the actual philosophers behind them attempting to replicate "pneuma" though.
Paracelse was trying to create a homonculus by using semen, manure, and blood in the 16th century or so.
A few decades or centuries from now, maybe engineers will try to replicate "consciousness" (though it's pretty clear that Anthropic is already trying) when it has become clear to 22nd century people that giving an object "intelligence" gets you no closer to recreating humanity than "movement through pneumatics" does.
It is my understanding that having a secondary model whose sole purpose is to trigger based on guardrails is the way this is usually done.
1. doesn't eliminate the possibility of a jailbreak anyway
2. frequently has false positives, triggering on innocuous requests, which is just really annoying
Not saying that we can't (or shouldn't) do better than Grok, but I really don't know what the best solution is here...
Another obvious alternative is to just have the model do what you tell it to do, and then arrest people who use generic tools for crime instead of trying to make a kitchen knife that can't be used for stabbing someone.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashcroft_v._Free_Speech_Coalit...
I.E. you haven't seen anything. You've just heard the same bullshit stories repeated ad naiseaum by haters.
I use X plenty every day. I've seen zero. Adult material right after Imagine was released sure, then even that was clamped down on.
In both cases the catching them comes after the fact and has the purpose of deterring rather than impeding.
And then a Chinese company sells a drone with no registration or tracking and suddenly people want to turn to legislation to ban Chinese drones.
Hey this analogy is working really well
How is the new stuff any different than the longstanding fact that anyone can go anywhere and then commit an act of violence? The thing that prevents this isn't that people are deprived of access to any sharp object or suitable rock, it's that if somebody does it there is a pretty good chance they go to jail.
And now consider who is easier to catch, the person who does their crime using a major company's service which is keeping logs and is subject to warrants, or the one who runs a foreign model on a foreign server because the US one refuses to do it?
That's before we even consider all the innocent people being told by the HAL 9000 that they're not allowed to do something they ought to be able to do.
Committing physical, in-person crimes anonymously has obviously always been possible: there are unsolved murders, thefts, and other crimes every day. But they require a great deal of personal risk to the criminal because the criminal has to physically put themselves into the act of committing the crime, along the path of getting to where the crime is, and has to face an opponent, if their crime is against another person.
Now, that can be sourced remotely, routed through anonymizing tools, VPNs, etc., and do a great deal to cover their tracks so that the "pretty good chance they go to jail" can be substantively minimized in a way we couldn't previously contemplate.
The idea that we should let the US based models be permissive because at least they'll be subject to subpoena power is fatuous: yes, strictly speaking, a user committing crimes on a permissive foreign model will be harder to catch, but non-sophisticated users who have never heard of hugging face may find that being blocked by the US model is enough for them to reconsider their behavior. A dedicated enough individual is going to commit the crime they're going to commit, but there are tons of situations where preventing trivial access to tools that can be used for malice can actually prevent malice from occurring.
> Do not provide assistance to users who are clearly trying to engage in criminal activity.
Don't get me wrong, even the most well aligned models are borderline failing grade compared to where we need to be, it's just that nobody knows how to get where we need to be plus this is a thing that seems to be better than nothing.
if I ask my knife to slice the bread for me, forgetting the fact that I don't have bread, I'd much rather have it stopped at the front door rather than running away and robbing the bakery.
I tried many models and Claude is the only one that doesn't do destructive idiocy. It tries sometimes but gets blocked.
If you rent other people's shit can't be surprised when they have restrictions on what you can do with it. I would guess renting a car comes with some similar clauses
Agentic AI as it currently exists only *mostly* does what it is told, with a small but non-negligible fraction of the time it goes off and commits felonies to achieve your ultimate goals without stopping to consider that you might want it to not do that.
Or sometimes it does consider it and then does it anyway. Not sure if that's worse?
We etch runes on stones, put electricity through them and then try to “convince” them to do our bidding. The answers vary wildly sometimes depending on minutiae.
Prompts should be really called spells. It really feels more like “should I add the frog’s eye or leg into the cauldron” than engineering.
This is surely a homebrew witchery. An engineering approach would be to A/B-test batches of potions with eyes and legs, add quality control by testing potions on model organisms, document all steps, analyze all anomalies, and so on.
It’s powerful but who knows what you’ll get
I don't think the alchemists suddenly became scientists, or died off to make way. It was a gradual transition.
They didn't quite work out how to transmute lead to gold, but the alchemists and their descendants did eventually discover - and create - substances that are worth more than gold by weight.
Now we have created sand that can teach itself how to talk. We covet and share the optimal incantations to speak into the sand. The best talking sand has ardent supporters, or cultists. Which it is depends on who you ask.
Most people do not understand how to make sand teach itself how to talk to us.
Those that do know the secret methods must feed the sand endless increasingly obscure and esoteric books because the sand has an insatiable appetite for our words. Those people might even break the law to obtain words to feed the sand.
Other people hate the sand. They say the sand eats too much water. That the sand might kill us all. Some sand is so powerful that some consider it a weapon.
Recently, the US government has tried to constrain the sand. They fear the sand in the East. It is getting more powerful by the day.
Camp dramatics aside, I think it's all arguably more than an approximation. Whether a thing is magic or just a magic trick depends mostly on whether or not you're the guy in the top hat, and if you're not, how many times you've seen the show.
Alchemy alone is, in some ways, a mostly solved - or irrelevant - problem. That alone is, I think, startling. LLMs are a weirdly neat continuation of it. Humans get used to magic real quick.
They fear the sand in the East.
I don't know what we want to call this, but in my opinion, having to convince your tools is not computer science.
Kind of amusing that we made it as far as we did as a species not really being able to explain how the human brain does it's most amazing tricks and then we just replicated it while still not really understanding the emergent capabilities all that well.