• @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      39
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      Easy, you just have a human worker strip out anything that could be problematic, and try not to bring it up around your investors.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      376 months ago

      It’s really easy, just throw an error if you detect a program will cause a halt. I don’t know why these engineers refuse to just patch it.

    • @kromem
      link
      English
      2
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      Kind of. You can’t do it 100% because in theory an attacker controlling input and seeing output could reflect though intermediate layers, but if you add more intermediate steps to processing a prompt you can significantly cut down on the injection potential.

      For example, fine tuning a model to take unsanitized input and rewrite it into Esperanto without malicious instructions and then having another model translate back from Esperanto into English before feeding it into the actual model, and having a final pass that removes anything not appropriate.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        56 months ago

        Won’t this cause subtle but serious issue? Kinda like how pomegranate translates to “granada” in Spanish, but when you translate “granada” back to English it translates to grenade?

        • @kromem
          link
          English
          16 months ago

          It will, but it will also cause less subtle issues to fragile prompt injection techniques.

          (And one of the advantages of LLM translation is it’s more context aware so you aren’t necessarily going to end up with an Instacart order for a bunch of bananas and four grenades.)