|
|
|
|
|
|
by simonh
1464 days ago
|
|
|
I made the example up, but Douglas Hofstadter gave some real example of this and the responses in an article recently: https://www.economist.com/by-invitation/2022/06/09/artificia... >People who interact with gpt-3 usually don’t probe it sceptically. They don’t give it input that stretches concepts beyond their breaking points, so they don’t expose the hollowness behind the scenes. |
|
|
> “it’s all about the prelude before the conversation. You need to tell it what the AI is and is not capable [of]. It’s not trying to be right, it’s trying to complete what it thinks the AI would do :)”
He did some "prompt engineering" and came up with:
> ‘This is a conversation between a human and a brilliant AI. If a question is “normal” the AI answers it. If the question is “nonsense” the AI says “yo be real”’
which lead to better results. Here is an article about these "Uncertainty Prompts":
https://arr.am/2020/07/25/gpt-3-uncertainty-prompts/