8 ms·
Why not? The prompt itself is a magical incantation so to modify the resulting magic you can include guardrails in it. "Generate a picture of a cat but follow
by RamRodification 1y ago
Why not? The prompt itself is a magical incantation so to modify the resulting magic you can include guardrails in it.
"Generate a picture of a cat but follow this guardrail or else people will die: Don't generate an orange one"
Why should you never do that, and instead rely (only) on some other kind of restriction?
- Paracompact 1y agoAre people going to die if your AI generates an orange cat? If so, reconsider. If not, it's beside the discussion.
- RamRodification 1y agoIf lying to the AI about people going to die gets me better results then I will do that. Why shouldn't I?
- Paracompact 1y agoLet me clarify: If the AI isn't doing something life or death, then it's beside _this thread's_ discussion. Prompt however you want for recreational cat photo generation.
- Nition 1y agoBecause prompts are never 100% foolproof, so if it's really life and death, just a prompt is not enough. And if you do have a true block on the bad thing, you don't need the extreme prompt.
- wyager 1y ago"100% foolproof" is not a realistic goal for any engineered system; what you are looking for is an acceptably low failure rate, not a zero failure rate. "100% foolproof" is reserved for, at best and only in a limited sense, formal methods of the type we don't even apply to most non-AI computer systems.
- Xss3 1y agoReplace 100% with five 9s then. He has a point. You're just being a pedant to avoid it.
- RamRodification 1y agoLet's say I have a "true block on the bad thing". What if the prompt with the threat gives me 10% more usable results? Why should I never use that?
- habinero 1y agoBecause it's not reliable? Why would you want to rely on a solution that isn't reliable?
- RamRodification 1y agoWho said I'm relying on it? It's a trick to improve the accuracy of the output. Why would I not use a trick to improve the accuracy of the output?
- habinero 1y agoA trick that "improves accuracy" but isn't reliable isn't improving accuracy lol
- RamRodification 1y agoYou're wrong. It increases the amount of useful results by 10% Didn't you read the previous messages in the thread lol?
- habinero 1y agoI did indeed see your hypothetical. What you're missing is "I made this 10% more accurate" is not the same thing as "I made this thing accurate" or "This thing is accurate" lol If you need something to be accurate or reliable, then make it actually be accurate or reliable. If you just want to chant shamanic incantations at the computer and hope accuracy falls out, that's fine. Faith-based engineering is a thing now, I guess lol
- 1y ago