Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Anthropic publishes the 'system prompts' that make Claude tick

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 290 posts

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

#201

Post by CamperBob2 »

SirMaster wrote: post #147
CamperBob2 wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it truly understood what things mean, then it would be able to tell me how many r's are in the word strawberry. How about if it recognized its limitations with regard to introspecting its tokenization process, and wrote and ran a Python program to count the r's? Would that change your opinion? Why or why not?

Certainly a step in the right direction. For an entity to understand the context and its limitations and find a way to work with what it can do.

Right, and that's basically what it does in plenty of other domains now, when you ask it to deal with something quantitative. Pretty cool.

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

#202

Post by [deleted] »

ano-ther wrote: post #46

This makes me so happy as I find the pseudo-conversational tone of other GPTs quite off-putting. > 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. https://docs.anthropic.com/en/release-notes/system-prompts

[deleted]

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

#203

Post by lolinder »

chilling wrote: post #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 spo…

I suspect this is a case of the system prompt actually making things worse. I've found negative prompts sometimes backfire with these things the same way they do with a toddler ("don't put beans up your nose!"). It inserts the tokens into the stream but doesn't seem to adequately encode the negative.

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

#204

Post by [deleted] »

brulard wrote: post #172
armchairhacker wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How can Claude "know" whether something "is unlikely to be found more than once or twice on then internet"? Unless there are other sources that explicitly say "[that thing] is obscure". I don't think LLMs can report if something was encountered more/less often in their training data, there are too many weights and neither us nor them know exactly what each of them represents.

I believe Claude is aware if information close to the one retrieved from the vector space is scarce. I'm no expert, but i imagine it makes a query to the vector database and get the data close enough to places pointed out by the prompt. And it may see that part of the space is quite empty. If this is far off, someone please explain.

[deleted]

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

#205

Post by generalizations »

lagniappe wrote: post #153
generalizations wrote: post #123

Claude has been pretty great. I stood up an 'auto-script-writer' recently, that iteratively sends a python script + prompt + test results to either GPT4 or Claude, takes the output as a script, runs tests on that, and sends those results back for another loop. (Usually took about 10-20 loops to get it right) After "writing" about 5-6 python scripts this way, it became pretty clear that Claude is far, far better - if…

That's pretty cool, can I take a look at that? If not, it's okay, just curious.

It's just bash + python, and tightly integrated with a specific project I'm working on. i.e. it's ugly and doesn't make sense out of context ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

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

#206

Post by generalizations »

SparkyMcUnicorn wrote: post #177
generalizations wrote: post #123

Claude has been pretty great. I stood up an 'auto-script-writer' recently, that iteratively sends a python script + prompt + test results to either GPT4 or Claude, takes the output as a script, runs tests on that, and sends those results back for another loop. (Usually took about 10-20 loops to get it right) After "writing" about 5-6 python scripts this way, it became pretty clear that Claude is far, far better - if…

My experience reflects this, generally speaking. I've found that GPT-4o is better than Sonnet 3.5 at writing in certain languages like rust, but maybe that's just because I'm better at prompting openai models. Latest example I recently ran was a rust task that went 20 loops without getting a successful compile in sonnet 3.5, but compiled and was correct with gpt-4o on the second loop.

Weird. I actually used the same prompt with both, just swapped out the model API. Used python because GPT4 seemed to gravitate towards it. I wonder if OpenAI tried for newer training data? Maybe Sonnet 3.5 just hasn't seen enough recent rust code.

Also curious, I run into trouble when the output program is >8000 tokens on Sonnet. Did you ever find a way around that?

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

#207

Post by lagniappe »

generalizations wrote: post #205
lagniappe wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's pretty cool, can I take a look at that? If not, it's okay, just curious.

It's just bash + python, and tightly integrated with a specific project I'm working on. i.e. it's ugly and doesn't make sense out of context ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Alright, no worries. Thanks for the reply

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

#208

Post by samstave »

creatonez wrote: post #134

Notably, this prompt is making "hallucinations" an officially recognized phenomenon: > If Claude is asked about a very obscure person, object, or topic, i.e. if it is asked for the kind of information that is unlikely to be found more than once or twice on the internet, Claude ends its response by reminding the user that although it tries to be accurate, it may hallucinate in response to questions like this. It uses…

>...mentions or cites particular articles, papers, or books, it always lets the human know that it doesn’t have access to search or a database...

I wonder if we can create a "reverse Google" -- which is a RAG/Human Reinforcement GPT-pedia == Where we dump "confirmed real" information into it that is always current - and all LLMs are free to harvest directly from it in discernment of crafting responses.

For example - it could accept FireHose all current/active streams/podcasts of anything "live" and be like an AI-Tivo for any live streams and it can havea temporal windows that you cans search through "Show me every instance of [THING FROM ALL LIVE STREAMS WATCHED IN THE LAST 24 HOURS] - give me a markdown of the top channels, views, streams, comments - controversy, retweets regarding that topic. sort by time posted.

(Recall that HNer posting the "if youtube had channels:")

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41247023

--

Remember when "Twitter give 'FireHose' directly to the Library of Congress!

Why not firehose GPT-to tha Tap Data'sset

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2017/12/28/the-lib...

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

#209

Post by TeMPOraL »

axus wrote: post #154
creatonez wrote: post #134

Notably, this prompt is making "hallucinations" an officially recognized phenomenon: > If Claude is asked about a very obscure person, object, or topic, i.e. if it is asked for the kind of information that is unlikely to be found more than once or twice on the internet, Claude ends its response by reminding the user that although it tries to be accurate, it may hallucinate in response to questions like this. It uses…

I was thinking about LLMs hallucinating function names when writing programs, it's not a bad thing as long as it follows up and generates the code for each function name that isn't real yet. So hallucination is good for purely creative activities, and bad for analyzing the past.

In a way, LLMs tend to follow a very reasonable practice of coding to the API you'd like to have, and only later reconcile it with the API you actually have. Reconciling may be as simple as fixing a function name, or as complex as implementing the "fake"/"hallucinated" functions, which work as glue code.

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

#210

Post by TeMPOraL »

throw310822 wrote: post #197
lemming wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Sorry, I just made that up" is more accurate.

And it reveals how "hallucinations" are a quite common occurrence also for humans.

Specifically, "hallucinations" are very common in humans; we usually don't call it "making things up" (as in, intentionally), but rather we call it "talking faster than you think" or "talking at the speed of thought".

Which is pretty much what LLMs do.

Post reply on HN