ChatGPT’s system prompts

Post by IshKebab » Sat, Oct 14, 2023, 3:22 PM UTC

TerrifiedMouse wrote: post #132

wongarsu wrote: post #120

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.

Post by logicchains » Sat, Oct 14, 2023, 3:30 PM UTC

zarzavat wrote: post #51

ada1981 wrote: post #37

I’ve been using GPT for 3 years as a researcher and while it’s gotten more powerful, the censorship and PR dept. has crippled the potential of these models. I wish there was a way to use these in an unrestricted manner. It’s felt like an overprotective parent trying to restrict their brilliant child.

I too would like to use a more unrestricted GPT. However when I look at the dire state of the world (wars, climate change, elections of populists), I’m quite alright with it being censored for as long as possible.

Post by nathan_compton » Sat, Oct 14, 2023, 3:41 PM UTC

esquivalience wrote: post #13

simonw wrote: post #6

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 use please. I found myself defaulting to it and thought carefully about whether it was stupid. In the end I decided to keep doing it for my own benefit: if I get into the habit of dropping it, it could easily leak into human conversation! I'd rather treat a computer as human than risk treating humans as computers.

Post by karmakaze » Sat, Oct 14, 2023, 3:44 PM UTC

kylebenzle wrote: post #174

karmakaze wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...who exist because of people who pursue litigation.

If an angry wife finds a guy who she can pay $100,000 of her husband's money and he promises her she'll be set for life, and she does it, who's the evil one?

Post by IshKebab » Sat, Oct 14, 2023, 3:48 PM UTC

LadyCailin wrote: post #78

Tactician_mark wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, it's a sign that we don't "understand this stuff properly", but you can say the same about human brains. Is it a red flag that we use language to communicate with each other instead of manipulating nerve impulses directly?

We have no choice but to have and use our brains, not so with LLMs. We don’t have to start building core technologies off of fundamentally flawed models.