Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I didn’t just go rush to execute a thousand API calls in response to this “prompt injection” and there’s no human who would or could



Open up their profile, open cnn.com to check their story, there's probably 1000 API calls right there.


This is a good example of the worst characteristic of the AI safety debate.

A: AI will be completely transformative

B: Maybe not in 100% a good way, we should put more effort into getting closer to 100% good

A: HA, here’s an internet-argument-gotcha that we both know has zero bearing on the problem at hand!


No, what I'm saying is more like:

A: You can't parse XML with pure regular expressions, for fundamental, mathematical reasons.

B: Maybe not in 100% a good way, but we should put more effort into getting closer to 100%.

A: But Zalgo...


This doesn’t really counter what the OP was saying.

Parent’s comment is calling his misleading statement prompt injection but it’s hyperbole at best. What is meant here is that this comment is not actionable in the sense that prompt injection directly controls its output.

In parent’s example no one is taking a HN commenter’s statement with more than a grain of salt whether or not it’s picked up by some low quality news aggregator. It’s an extremely safe bet that no unverified HN comment has resulted in direct action by a military or significantly affected main stream media perceptions.

Most humans - particularly those in positions of power - have levels of evidence, multiple sanity checks and a chain of command before taking action.

Current LLMs have little to none of this and RLHF is clearly not the answer.




Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: