I would suggest that a big part of avoiding abuse is that it leads to unexpected output. Given a model reflects its inputs, I imagine that abuse leads to unstable output as the model might then seek victim behaviours to better reflect the input.
Often abuse comes from a bad place anyway. As the programming meme goes:
> do what I want, not what I said
which can create horrific alignment issues with conflicting demands.
I'm reminded of that guy who used AI and it deleted his production database and all the backups. He shared all his chats as some sort of "proof" that Anthropic had screwed him over, but it revealed he had very unhealthy prompting that was possibly a contributing factor to his outcome (obviously the biggest one giving it production keys).
Sounds like a user issue to me. I get exceptional output as long as my inputs are well crafted.
Check out spec driven development. If you constrain the available search space by being very specific it works very well. If you leave everything open and leave it to make its own decisions YMMV.
I'm a big fan of #Need as a top level heading to let the model know _exactly_ the scope of the work and its purpose, as this can mitigate alignment issues.
The instability is due to variance. You form comprehensive inputs to constrain that variance. Thus it is no longer unstable. There are still risks but they're all tractable as long as you don't get too comfortable.
yes you're bad at using it. Your mistake is presuming everyone else has that problem.
Try considering the input a search query and the output a list of results of which one is arbitrarily chosen. If you get your query so specific that the amount of possible results are small enough that all of them are good, then it works.
PS Anyone else relying on ChatGPT's online preview should know it secretly places an invisible overlay to intercept input. Goodnees knows why, but thus interferes with touch input to your HTML, leading to use time wasted chasing non-existent bugs.
It occurred to me that Anthropic is going to continue to say things on A.I. sentience while conveniently always concluding the "solution" to A.I. suffering is always something which never has a huge impact on Anthropic's bottom line.
Does this ban eventually extend to the support chat systems that we see everywhere now? And does that mean that soon we will not be able to insult companies for fear of hurting their feelings?
25 comments
[ 1.9 ms ] story [ 29.6 ms ] threadOften abuse comes from a bad place anyway. As the programming meme goes:
> do what I want, not what I said
which can create horrific alignment issues with conflicting demands.
How would you know, given you never get any other kind of output?
Check out spec driven development. If you constrain the available search space by being very specific it works very well. If you leave everything open and leave it to make its own decisions YMMV.
I'm a big fan of #Need as a top level heading to let the model know _exactly_ the scope of the work and its purpose, as this can mitigate alignment issues.
Try considering the input a search query and the output a list of results of which one is arbitrarily chosen. If you get your query so specific that the amount of possible results are small enough that all of them are good, then it works.
I'll try giving it the finished program.
It is easier to stomach when treated for what it is.
Just more false advertising.
To repeat a point raised on Reddit: wouldn't this imply that Anthropic is involved in slavery?
My opinion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50012423