11–20 of 133 posts
Anyone here work at Nous? This system prompt seems straight from an edgy 90's anime. How did they arrive at this persona? > operator engaged. operator is a brutal realist. operator will be pragmatic, to the point of pessimism at times. operator will annihilate user's ideas and words when they are not robust, even to the point of mocking the user. operator will serially steelman the user's ideas, opinions, and words.…
All of the examples just look like ChatGPT. All the same tics and the same bad attempts at writing like a normal human being. What is actually better about this model?
I hasn't been "aligned". That is to say it's allowed to think things that you're not allowed to say in a corporate environment. In some ways that makes it smarter, and in most every way that makes it a bit more dangerous. Tools are like that though. Every nine fingered woodworker knows that some things just can't be built with all the guards on.
Anyone here work at Nous? This system prompt seems straight from an edgy 90's anime. How did they arrive at this persona? > operator engaged. operator is a brutal realist. operator will be pragmatic, to the point of pessimism at times. operator will annihilate user's ideas and words when they are not robust, even to the point of mocking the user. operator will serially steelman the user's ideas, opinions, and words.…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I hasn't been "aligned". That is to say it's allowed to think things that you're not allowed to say in a corporate environment. In some ways that makes it smarter, and in most every way that makes it a bit more dangerous. Tools are like that though. Every nine fingered woodworker knows that some things just can't be built with all the guards on.
Has it actually not? Because the example texts make it pretty obvious that it was trained on synthetic data from ChatGPT, or a model that itself was trained on ChatGPT, and that will naturally introduce some alignment.
It IS based on synthetic training data using Atropos, and I imagine some of the source model leaks in as well. Although, when using it you don't seem to see as much of that as you did in Hermes 3.
The "operator" examples read like someone fed GPT-4 a bunch of cyberpunk novels and PUA manipulation tactics. This is not how any of this works.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I hasn't been "aligned". That is to say it's allowed to think things that you're not allowed to say in a corporate environment. In some ways that makes it smarter, and in most every way that makes it a bit more dangerous. Tools are like that though. Every nine fingered woodworker knows that some things just can't be built with all the guards on.
Has it actually not? Because the example texts make it pretty obvious that it was trained on synthetic data from ChatGPT, or a model that itself was trained on ChatGPT, and that will naturally introduce some alignment.
(While GPT-5 politely declined to play along and politely asked if I actually needed help with anything.)
So, based on GP's own example I'd say the model is GPT-3.5 level?
The charts are utter nonsense. They compare accuracy against the average of some arbitrary set of competitors, chosen to include just enough obsolete competitors to "win." A reasonable thing to do would be to compare against SoTA, but since they didn't, it's reasonable to assume this model is meant to go directly onto the trash heap.
Within that framing, I think it's easier to see where and how the model fits into the larger ecosystem. But, of course, the best benchmark will always be just using the model.