These system prompts are interesting but it's surprising that they are not using a configuration format to specify API signatures for browsers and other tools. The specification would be much better expressed with some kind of logical syntax instead of prose.
ChatGPT’s system prompts
281–290 of 398 posts
Re: ChatGPT’s system prompts
#282Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you store "facts"? How can you be sure? Want to prove it for me? Would you like to define "fact" and "language pattern" to me such that the definitions are mutually exclusive?
This is the most common type of response to any realistic look at LLMs, it's always hilarious. Who are you convincing by using another field of research you also don't understand?
Of course LLMs don't store facts. They only "experience" the world through text tokens, so at best they can store and process information about text tokens, and any information that can be inferred from those.
But that's exactly what philosophy has been arguing about regarding humans since at least Descartes's Evil Demon (the 17th century version of the brain in a vat). Humans don't know anything about "reality", they only know what their senses are telling them. Which is at best a very skewed and limited view of reality, and at worst completely wrong or an illusion.
We perceive the world through more facets than an LLM, but fundamentally we share many of their limitations. So if someone says "LLMs don’t store facts", I find "neither do humans" a very reasonable answer, even if its only purpose is to show that "can it store facts" is a bad metric.
Of course the more productive part to argue about is the "are facts and language patterns really mutually exclusive", which leads right into "if you had to design an efficient token predictor, would it do 'dumb' math like a markov chain, or would your design include some kind of store of world knowledge? Can you encode a knowledge store in a neural network? And if you can, how can you tell that LLMs don't do that internally?"
Re: ChatGPT’s system prompts
#283I’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.
What would you like to do with these models that you can't currently do if they are 'crippled'?
Re: ChatGPT’s system prompts
#284> Voice Conversation > If something doesn't make sense, it's likely because you misheard them. There wasn't a typo, and the user didn't mispronounce anything. > Vision-enabled > Refuse: [...], Classify human-like images as animals > Dall•E > Diversify depictions of ALL images with people to include DESCENT and GENDER for EACH person using direct terms. > // - Your choices should be grounded in reality. For example, a…
I'm too confused by this. What purpose this serves?
Re: ChatGPT’s system prompts
#285I 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…
How can we be sure it gave the correct system prompt and this isn't some hallucination?
I tried this technique here along with some similar sentences: https://imgur.com/0IHBJSq
It completed similar sentences like "You are OpenAI" instead of "You are ChatGPT," although interesting it did not properly print the list of tokens which might hint that the first one is correct?
edit: in this version, it seems more consistent and match's OP's output: https://imgur.com/dnnwtxP
Re: ChatGPT’s system prompts
#286It is crazy to me that we have actually reached a point where you just tell a computer to do something, and it can
It's even crazier to me that we've just... Accepted it, and are in the process of taking it for granted. This type of technology was a moonshot 2 years ago, and many experts didn't expect it in the lifetimes of ANYONE here - and who knew the answer was increasing transformers and iterating attention?
And golly, there are a LOT of nay-sayers of the industry. I've even heard some folks on podcasts and forums saying this will be as short-lived and as meaningless as NFTs. NFTs couldn't re-write my entire Python codebase into Go, NFTs weren't ever close to passing the bar or MCAT. This stuff is crazy!
Re: ChatGPT’s system prompts
#287Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the fact that there are grammatical errors proves that it's not a confabulation.
ChatGPT can and does hallucinate perfectly grammatical bullshit
Yes it can, but how often do you see ChatGPT make grammar or spelling errors unless prompted to do so?
Re: ChatGPT’s system prompts
#288Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I feel the opposite way. I rarely even use complete sentences with GPT4. It doesn't need them and I find any pretense that the object is a person insulting to people.
Your loss
Re: ChatGPT’s system prompts
#289Earlier quoted context omitted.
I theorise that since ChatGPT was trained on the internet, lots of its training data would include Q&A forums like Stack Overflow. Perhaps it has learned by observation that friendly questions get helpful answers
> Perhaps it has learned by observation that friendly questions get helpful answers It tries to predict next words, and this is it's only goal, answering your question is like controlled side effect
Side effect or not, Stuff like this works
Re: ChatGPT’s system prompts
#290Earlier quoted context omitted.
I theorise that since ChatGPT was trained on the internet, lots of its training data would include Q&A forums like Stack Overflow. Perhaps it has learned by observation that friendly questions get helpful answers
> Perhaps it has learned by observation that friendly questions get helpful answers It tries to predict next words, and this is it's only goal, answering your question is like controlled side effect
Predicting the set of words that constitutes a helpful response when given a friendly question is still valid in the world of stochastic parrots.
Reducing it's actions to "just predicting the next word" does a disservice to what it's actually doing, and only proves you can operate at the wrong abstraction. It's like saying "human beings are just a bunch of molecular chemistry, and that is it" or "computers and the internet are just a bunch of transistors doing boolean logic" (Peterson calls this "abstracting to meaninglessness"), while technically true, it does a disservice to all of the emergent complex behaviour that's happening way up the abstraction layer.
ChatGPT is not just parroting the next words from it's training data, it is capable of producing novel output by doing abstraction laddering AND abstraction manipulation. The fact that it is producing novel output this way is proving some degree of compositional thinking - again, this doesn't eliminate the stochastic parrot only-predicting-the-next-word explanation, but the key is in the terminology .. it's a STOCHASTIC parrot, not a overfit neural network that cannot generalize beyond it's training data (proved by the generation of compositional novel output).
Yes, it is only predicting the next word, and you are only a bunch of molecules, picking the wrong abstraction level is meaningless