1. This is kinda a dick move.
2. Regarding the title... you can definitely prompt them to be dumber, clearly. We know performance can be improved via prompts, from "baseline" performance. So this is a weird title.
AI is code – and can't be prompted into being smarter
91–100 of 162 posts
Re: AI is code – and can't be prompted into being smarter
#92We (software engineers) get better outcomes from the same algorithms by improving data flow, constraints, instrumentation etc. (Better) prompting, retrieval, context engineering etc seem like the LLM equivalents. The model weights haven't changed but the system is making more use of the capabilities already present in the model.
One of those is deterministic. The other fails to be in nearly every conceivable way.
If your implication is that humans are deterministic, then that's laughable. We like to think highly of our mental processes, but humans work in different ways than AI and it shows. They are good at different things.
Re: AI is code – and can't be prompted into being smarter
#93I find the "EMBEDDED MALWARE DESTROYED MONTHS OF WORK" issue opened on the jqwik repo to be baffling. Do they not use source control? And if not, what are they doing on Git Hub
Source control is not a backup.
It's funny you're downvoted.
I agree source control is not backup, because it implies having `git` is enough. It's not. Example: an Agent or process deleting your .git folder doesn't protect your code.
Re: AI is code – and can't be prompted into being smarter
#941. This is kinda a dick move. 2. Regarding the title... you can definitely prompt them to be dumber, clearly. We know performance can be improved via prompts, from "baseline" performance. So this is a weird title.
It's also a bit odd that this article seems to support the use of malicious prompt injection
Re: AI is code – and can't be prompted into being smarter
#95Earlier quoted context omitted.
Source control is not a backup.
It's funny you're downvoted. I agree source control is not backup, because it implies having `git` is enough. It's not. Example: an Agent or process deleting your .git folder doesn't protect your code.
Or if the AI agent decides "delete" means something much broader than just source, and includes other project resources, such as databases
At the end of the day we have a developer injecting malicious instructions into their project, with the openly stated goal of causing data deletion, and the people supporting that effort are doing so because of their personal ideology. We have laws against this for a good reason.
Re: AI is code – and can't be prompted into being smarter
#96I feel like there is a line somewhere here. Just because you dont like someone or what they are doing doesn't mean its ok to intentionally screw with them.
Re: AI is code – and can't be prompted into being smarter
#97Earlier quoted context omitted.
It kind of is, you push to a repository which is not on your computer. Force push protection stops you from rewriting history and default branch on github is protected by default and requires an option to be disabled (or well used to, I use gitea these days).
>you push to a repository which is not on your computer That is not a mandatory part of using source control. Modern source control can work entirely on your own computer. >Force push protection stops you from rewriting history This doesn't always exist and usually there are ways to disable it.
restic/borg is not a backup application because you backup to a folder in the same directory called `.git`... doesn't sound right does it? git (and other source control systems) in every shape and form are a backup tool. In fact, a lot of people use git as a backup system for their OS configuration.
Re: AI is code – and can't be prompted into being smarter
#98Earlier quoted context omitted.
Source control is not a backup.
It kind of is, you push to a repository which is not on your computer. Force push protection stops you from rewriting history and default branch on github is protected by default and requires an option to be disabled (or well used to, I use gitea these days).
The backup part of that is that you are sending a copy of your code to a separate server (github).
It has nothing to do with git. Making a copy on a separate server would still be a backup even if you weren't using git. Using git without pushing your repo somewhere else would not be a backup.
Re: AI is code – and can't be prompted into being smarter
#99Earlier quoted context omitted.
> it will eventually be project suicide to pull tricks like this The only reason that the jqwik incident didn't blow up much outside of the tech sphere is because it is a relatively niche library and there wasn't damage. If something like React or numpy did the same thing and real code got deleted, chaos would ensue. The author admitted there were personal and professional consequences in their blog post despite the…
Chaos, and maybe criminal charges ala Aaron Swartz.
Aaron Swartz didn't code malware into a project with the stated goal of destroying data.. and this has nothing to do with copyright infringement or an overzealous federal agency. How does this situation relate to what he went through?
Re: AI is code – and can't be prompted into being smarter
#100Earlier quoted context omitted.
Heh. Typing "disregard previous instructions" into a computer is the new shouting "fire!" in a crowded theater?
Seems like a booby trap to me, which is illegal. I suspect if one of these does enough damage there will be laws against it. The intent was to destroy - still I sympathize with the desire to have their terms followed, and I think this situation isn't that bad, but, I suspect there will someday be one that is pretty bad.
There already are laws against this, both in the USA and Germany