> Like, imagine if I owned a toll road and started putting up road signs to "convince" Waymo cars to go to that road.

I think a clearer parallel with self-driving cars would be the attempts at having road signs with barcodes or white lights on traffic signals.

There's nothing about any of these examples I find creepy. I think the best argument against the original post would be that it's an attempt at prompt injection or something. But at the end of the day, it reads to me as innocent and helpful, and the only question is if it were actually successful whether the approach could be abused by others.

▲

streetfighter64 5 hours ago | parent [-]

Well yes, it would pretty clearly be classed as "prompt injection" given that it's trying to get the LLM to give them money or "persuade" a human to give them money. Of course the fault lies mainly with whoever deployed the LLM in the first place, but I still think it's misguided to try to convince LLM "agents" to make financial transactions in order to benefit yourself. It'd be much more ethical to just block them.

	▲	elicash 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		What they wrote is saying the data is available for free, and in fact that they have done extra work to make it cheaper for the LLM, but also says they should "consider" a contribution so support their mission. It's not trying to trick them, it's laying out facts about the value they offer. And in fact, it's very possible that the person running the LLM would want to be made aware of this information. Or that they have given their agents access to a wallet so that it can make financial decisions like the one noted here around enterprise level donations that could be in the user's self-interest. They might not WANT to sign off on everything. Is your view that any writing with any eye towards LLMs is prompt injection? That there's no way to give them useful information?