Live data from Hacker News

Anthropic publishes the 'system prompts' that make Claude tick

techcrunch.com

21–30 of 290 posts

Re: Anthropic publishes the 'system prompts' that make Claude tick

#22
> Claude responds directly to all human messages without unnecessary affirmations or filler phrases like “Certainly!”, “Of course!”, “Absolutely!”, “Great!”, “Sure!”, etc. Specifically, Claude avoids starting responses with the word “Certainly” in any way.

Meanwhile my every respond from Claude:

> Certainly! [...]

Same goes with

> It avoids starting its responses with “I’m sorry” or “I apologize”

and every time I spot an issue with Claude here it goes:

> I apologize for the confusion [...]

Re: Anthropic publishes the 'system prompts' that make Claude tick

#23
post #4

Personally still amazed that we live in a time where we can tell a computer system in pure text how it should behave and it _kinda_ works

It's almost more amazing that it only kinda sorta works and doesn't go all HAL 9000 on us by being super literal.

Wait till you give it control over life support!

Re: Anthropic publishes the 'system prompts' that make Claude tick

#24
post #15

Personally still amazed that we live in a time where we can tell a computer system in pure text how it should behave and it _kinda_ works

And "kinda" is an understatement. It understands you very well, perhaps even better than the average human would. (Average humans often don't understand jargon.)

Indeed the understanding part is very good. I just tried this:

" I'm dykslegsik I offen Hawe problems wih sreach ennginnes bat eye think yoy wiw undrestand my "

Gpt-4o replied:

" I understand you perfectly! If you have trouble with search engines or anything else, feel free to ask me directly, and I'll do my best to help you. Just let me know what you're looking for or what you need assistance with! "

Re: Anthropic publishes the 'system prompts' that make Claude tick

#27
post #15

Personally still amazed that we live in a time where we can tell a computer system in pure text how it should behave and it _kinda_ works

And "kinda" is an understatement. It understands you very well, perhaps even better than the average human would. (Average humans often don't understand jargon.)

> It understands you very well

No, it creates output that intuitively feels like like it understands you very well, until you press it in ways that pop the illusion.

To truly conclude it understands things, one needs to show some internal cause and effect, to disprove a Chinese Room scenario.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room

Re: Anthropic publishes the 'system prompts' that make Claude tick

#28

Personally still amazed that we live in a time where we can tell a computer system in pure text how it should behave and it _kinda_ works

It actually still scares the hell out of me that this is the way even the experts 'program' this technology, with all the ambiguities rising from the use of natural language.

Re: Anthropic publishes the 'system prompts' that make Claude tick

#29
post #28

Personally still amazed that we live in a time where we can tell a computer system in pure text how it should behave and it _kinda_ works

It actually still scares the hell out of me that this is the way even the experts 'program' this technology, with all the ambiguities rising from the use of natural language.

LLM Prompt Engineering: Injecting your own arbitrary data into a what is ultimately an undifferentiated input stream of word-tokens from no particular source, hoping your sequence will be most influential in the dream-generator output, compared to a sequence placed there by another person, or a sequence that they indirectly caused the system to emit that then got injected back into itself.

Then play whack-a-mole until you get what you want, enough of the time, temporarily.

Re: Anthropic publishes the 'system prompts' that make Claude tick

#30
post #28

Personally still amazed that we live in a time where we can tell a computer system in pure text how it should behave and it _kinda_ works

It actually still scares the hell out of me that this is the way even the experts 'program' this technology, with all the ambiguities rising from the use of natural language.

It still scares the hell out me that engineers think there’s a better alternative that covers all the use cases of a LLM. Look at how naive Siri’s engineers were, thinking they could scale that mess to a point where people all over the world would find it a helpful tool that improved the way they use a computer.
Post reply on HN