People understand that. They just don't know how to implement that with LLMs

In the GPT-2 era LLMs were just data. Instructions did not exist, and if you added them to your data they would not be followed. Then around 2022 we figured out how to patch in instruction following with a bit of fine tuning, leading to the current AI bubble. That's an ugly hack that leads to all these issues. But it's what this entire AI bubble is founded on. And nobody seems to have found a better way (or at least one that actually scales and doesn't make unreasonable sacrifices)

▲

TeMPOraL 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Sure they would be. But for those old models, you'd have to prompt it in a framing of a screenplay or something.

You're forgetting that LLMs just output a stream of tokens - the interpreter that acts on those is a piece of classical code, and sits outside of the model.

▲

xienze 3 hours ago | parent [-]

> the interpreter that acts on those is a piece of classical code, and sits outside of the model.

Correct, but it's an LLM that's reasoning about what stream of interpretable tokens should be emitted. The interpreter can certainly apply some security measures around what's being asked of it (like ask for confirmation), but that can only go so far. Is the human in the loop always capable of understanding what's safe to execute? If not, should we pass it through another fallible LLM to help make that judgement call?

Some security measures can be handled in a purely deterministic manner. But not all of them, and that's the problem.

	▲	TeMPOraL 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The mistake is in treating the LLM as just another deterministic, narrow computer program it can reason about. It's not. It's a "DWIM" system, and unless you can always precisely express what you mean - which you can't (not the very least because often people only realize what they meant after they get a result that's not it) - you have to treat the LLM as a human-like component. It's what it was designed to be anyway.