| ▲ | ben30 5 hours ago |
| My kids went on a theme park ride and ask nano banana to remove the watermark. It said im not the rights holder to do that. I said yes I am. It’s said I need proof. So I got another window to make a letter saying I had proof. …Sure here you go |
|
| ▲ | Terr_ 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| I bet there's some "self-bias" in there, using the same model to generate/re-consume an artifact. |
|
| ▲ | Xcelerate 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| I mean that trick works on humans too. Fake IDs, provide two types of documentation for a driver's license, passport, or buying a home, etc. |
| |
| ▲ | maweaver 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Yes but generally one cannot walk into a store and buy a fake id, then turn around and hand it to another cashier in the same store for a restricted purchase. Which I think would be the closer metaphor. | | |
| ▲ | nhecker 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | >turn around and Except that each of the parent's chat windows has zero context that the other window's request even exists, so from each window's point of view it's as if one person walks in to a store to buy a fake ID, and then somewhere else in a different universe on a different timeline a different person walks into a different store to hand that same fake ID over to a different cashier for the restricted purchase. The LLMs are doing the best they can with absolutely zero context. Which has got to be a hard problem, IMO. | | |
| ▲ | forthefuture an hour ago | parent [-] | | Except that's the point. It is the same store. It is two different cashiers. The second one doesn't know you got the ID from the first one, that's why it works. The point is that if a store like that existed, it would be stupid as fuck. Also, at least in ChatGPT, it has access to every other session, so you're never working with zero context unless you create a new account (and even then they could have other fingerprinting, I just haven't tested it). |
|
|
|
