No, I read your words the first time, I just don't understand. What would you have written differently, can you provide a concrete example?

▲

joshuamcginnis 3 hours ago | parent [-]

I don’t how to explain it to you any different. I’m arguing for a different philosophy to be applied when constructing the llm guardrails. There may be a lot of overlap in how the rules are manifested in the short run.

	▲	felixgallo 3 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		You can explain it differently by providing a concrete example. Just saying "the philosophy should be different" is not informative. Different in what specific way? Can you give an example of a guiding statement that you think is wrong in the original document, and an example of the guiding statement that you would provide instead? That might be illuminative and/or persuasive.