[thaanpaa]

In other words, a probability-based text generator does not behave like a sentient being. That's hardly an attack; isn't it more of a misunderstanding of the technology?

[simonw]

That's why I always emphasize that prompt injection isn't an attack against LLMs themselves: its a class of attacks against applications we build on top of LLMs that work by concatenating together trusted and untrusted prompts.

[thaanpaa]

Isn't that just shifting the user's misunderstanding to whoever is developing the application?

I guess my argument is that if the type of behaviour described in the article causes problems, perhaps the technology was chosen incorrectly.

Edit: Or maybe I just have a problem with the vocabulary. Obviously, it's useful information.

[roywiggins]

It's a bit weird that they can't even avoid this when it comes to images; GPT shouldn't really be obeying instructions from images at all! I wonder if it's just OCRing images and concatenating that into the prompt...

[simonw]

It's much more sophisticated than just OCR. The model was trained on images and text at the same time - it isn't processing images in a separate step.

The GPT-4 paper has a bunch more about this.

[thaanpaa]

Not really, I suppose; it's just a different type of prompt. The algorithm does not "know" what it is fed. Data is data.

[chpatrick]

And humans are meat-based text generators, so what?

[thaanpaa]

I apologise, but I have no interest in any tech religion.

[chpatrick]

What about meat religion?