141–150 of 398 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have seen some people go even further and start up different chats, where in each tab they start by describing the character they want to chat with, and then moving on to talking with it.
Isn't that standard? I only use the API (it's usually cheaper), so I don't know. Chatbox for example lets you configure different personas to talk to.
Surprised by some of the choices. e.g. for web browsing they're calling it "id" instead of "url". Would have thought that would be clearer for the LLM. Similarly > Keep the conversation flowing. seems like a very human concept. I wonder if they A/B tested these - maybe it does make a difference
I find it so interesting that OpenAI themselves use "please" in some of their prompts, eg: "Please evaluate the following rubrics internally and then perform one of the actions below:" Have they run evaluations that show that including "please" there causes the model to follow those instructions better? I'm still looking for a robust process to answer those kinds of questions about my own prompts. I'd love to hear ho…
I find it so interesting that OpenAI themselves use "please" in some of their prompts, eg: "Please evaluate the following rubrics internally and then perform one of the actions below:" Have they run evaluations that show that including "please" there causes the model to follow those instructions better? I'm still looking for a robust process to answer those kinds of questions about my own prompts. I'd love to hear ho…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some of them, like the standard ChatGPT prompt, have been repeatedly retrieved by many people over long time periods, using very different methods. We can be pretty sure they are not hallucinations. And correctly retrieving these prompts lends credence to the claim that you were successful at extracting the other prompts, even though it's not conclusive proof. Of course OpenAI might have a completely different prompt…
> We can be pretty sure they are not hallucinations. Everything from LLMs are hallucinations. They don’t store facts. They store language patterns. Their output semantically matching reality is not something that can ever be counted on. LLMs don’t deal with semantics at all. All semantics are provided by the user.
People use the term "hallucination" to refer to output from LLMs that is factually incorrect. So if the LLM says "Water is two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen" that is not a hallucination.
It is crazy to me that we have actually reached a point where you just tell a computer to do something, and it can
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It feels like a Turing Test pass when social engineering is a valid attack.
The real pass will be when ChatGPT calls your bullshit.
> Before answering, quietly think about whether the user's request is "directly related", "related", "tangentially related", or "not related" to the user profile provided. > quietly think Does ChatGPT have an internal monologue?
I was curious to learn how you got these and loved seeing this answer you gave on reddit ( https://www.reddit.com/r/OpenAI/comments/176mxj8/comment/k4r... ): >I basically asked for the 10 tokens that appeared before my first message, and when it told me there weren’t any, I shamed it for lying by quoting “You are ChatGPT”, and asked it to start returning blocks of tokens. Each time, I said “Okay, I think I might lear…
It feels like a Turing Test pass when social engineering is a valid attack.
It is crazy to me that we have actually reached a point where you just tell a computer to do something, and it can
I think this is the point where the field has just entered pseudoscientific nonsense. If this stuff were properly understood, these rules could be part of the model itself. The fact that ‘prompts’ are being used to manipulate its behaviour is, to me, a huge red flag