I was recently in a call (consulting capacity, subject matter expert) where HR is driving the use of Microsoft Copilot agents, and the HR lead said "You can avoid hallucinations with better prompting; look, use all 8k characters and you'll be fine." Please, proceed. Agree with sibling comment wrt cargo culting and simply ignoring any concerns as it relates to technology limitations.
Unfortunately it takes ~9 months just to build that network up to the point where you can start training it, and then the training itself is literally years of hard effort.
finally, we've achieved clarity of purpose and target as predicted by the classic internet meme Poe's Law. from now on our statements shall no longer be mistaken for nor contribute to that which we intend to criticize
Isn't this already done? I remember a "try to hack the llm" game posted here months ago, where you had to try to get the llm to tell you a password, one of the levels had a sanitzer llm in front of the other.
Isn't that just another guardrail that can be bypassed much the same as the guard rails are currently quite easily bypassed? It is not easy to detect a prompt. Note some of the recent prompt injection attack where the injection was a base64 encoded string hidden deep within an otherwise accurate logfile. The LLM, while seeing the Jira ticket with attached trace , as part of the analysis decided to decode the b64 and was led a stray by the resulting prompt. Of course a hypothetical LLM could try and detect such prompts but it seems they would have to be as intelligent as the target LLM anyway and thereby subject to prompt injections too.
* You can reduce risk of hallucinations with better prompting - sure
* You can eliminate risk of hallucinations with better prompting - nope
"Avoid" is that intersection where audience will interpret it the way they choose to and then point as their justification. I'm assuming it's not intentional but it couldn't be better picked if it were :-/
Essentially a motte-and-bailey. "mitigate" is the same. Can be used when the risk is only partially eliminated but you can be lucky (depending on perspective) the reader will believe the issue is fully solved by that mitigation.
another prolific example of this fallacy, often found in the blockchain space, is the equivocation of statistical probability, with provable/computational determinism -- hash(x) != x, no matter how likely or unlikely a hash collision may be, but try explaining this to some folks and it's like talking to a wall
A M&B is a medieval castle layout. Those bloody Norsemen immigrants who duffed up those bloody Saxon immigrants, wot duffed up the native Britons, built quite a few of those things. Something, something, Frisians, Romans and other foreigners. Everyone is a foreigner or immigrant in Britain apart from us locals, who have been here since the big bang.
Essentially: you advance a claim that you hope will be interpreted by the audience in a "wide" way (avoid = eliminate) even though this could be difficult to defend. On the rare occasions some would call you on it, the claim is such it allows you to retreat to an interpretation that is more easily defensible ("with the word 'avoid' I only meant it reduces the risk, not eliminates").
