5 ms·
> "do this or people will die" doesn't actually do anything The very first message you replied to in this thread described a situation where "the prompt with t
by RamRodification 1y ago
> "do this or people will die" doesn't actually do anything
The very first message you replied to in this thread described a situation where "the prompt with the threat gives me 10% more usable results". If you believe that the premise is impossible I don't understand why you didn't just say so. Instead of going on about it not being a reliable method.
If you really think something is impossible, you don't base your argument on it being "unreliable".
> I don't get it lol.
I think you are correct here.
- Nition 1y agoI took that comment as more like "it doesn't have any effect beyond the output of the model", i.e. unlike saying something like that to a human, it doesn't actually make the model feel anything, the model won't spread the lie to its friends, and so on.
- habinero 1y agoNah, you're managing to miss the point going both ways lol. It's both. Let's assume for the sake of argument that your statement is true, that you do, in fact, somehow get 10% more useful results. The two points are: 1. That doesn't make the system better in any way lol. You've built a tool that acts like a slot machine and only works if you get three cherries. Increasing the odds on cherries doesn't change the fact that using a slot machine as a UI is a ridiculous way to work. 2. In the real world, LLMs don't think. They do not use logic. They just churn out text in non-deterministic ways in response to input. They are not reliable and cannot be made so. Anybody who thinks they can is fooling / Clever Hansing themselves. The point here is you might feel like the system is 10% more useful, but it feels like that because human brains have some hardware bugs.