5 ms·

I just had GPT-4 try to add my ssh key into a docker image to run git clone - which would work but would leave my private ssh key in the final image! And it's

I just had GPT-4 try to add my ssh key into a docker image to run git clone - which would work but would leave my private ssh key in the final image! And it's suggested fix had the same issue! So yeah idk about trusting it more then as an assistant - its too good at making incredibly convincing (even working) solutions that have massive security/other issues.

literalAardvark 4y ago
So ask it to review the result for issues and then send it to rework. You know, like everyone does. Why are you expecting it to be better than us?
- op00to 4y ago
  Some of us don’t understand how to accept mistakes and think we have to be perfect but we will never be perfect so we work harder and … how do I make burnout a prompt?
  - thewataccount 4y ago
    > Some of us don’t understand how to accept mistakes I might be miss-interpreting you and the parent but - this mistake results in leaking my personal private ssh key into a docker image that could be made public. This is not a mistake that should be acceptable. If you made it accidentally that's one thing, but I'm not accepting GPT4's first, second, or third attempts (I gave up on that prompt) that make that mistake.
    - op00to 4y ago
      I was joking that for most people, we can't do what the parent post wants, which is to learn from our mistakes. For people this often leads to burnout. :)
- thewataccount 4y ago
  > So ask it to review the result for issues and then send it to rework. I did, and it made the same mistake just in a slightly different way. I've seen it do this before with other problems where it just can't understand what it's mistake was. Also because the image would have built correctly and have works, it wouldn't even know there's a problem with the autogpt/langchain setups people have been doing. The scary part to me is most newbies wouldn't be able to recognize the problem - adding a file embeds it into the image layer, even if you remove the file later in the build process.
  - literalAardvark 4y ago
    Sorry, I think I phrased the question poorly. I meant that everyone makes dumb mistakes (and sometimes catches them) all the time, not that everyone asks GPT multiple times. And sometimes those mistakes are hard to catch.
- Pamar 4y ago
  the problem is if the error that it makes are subtle enough to be missed by the guy/gal who decided that "now I can take care of the Kubernetes install without even having to go to StackOverflow or whatever... you know, a place where other people with some experience can point out errors in the proposed solutions".
  - thewataccount 4y ago
    Yeah exactly. I'm not sure how many people would recognize that adding a file in one RUN and then removing it in another RUN during a Dockerfile build would result in the file still existing in one of the layers. IMO that's a good example of a critical bug (leaked private ssh key) that would be difficult to spot for even someone who's semi-comfortable with Dockerfiles and just isn't familiar with exactly how the build processes works and realizes that it will be an issue. Again it looks really correct and I think would have worked with no errors.
- majormajor 4y ago
  I'd settle for "as good as", not "better." I've had several similar experiences as the above poster. Most recently, I was playing around with an interview question and removed a constraint and asked it to update its solution for it. It gave a new solution, but it still didn't work on the new, harder input. I pointed out exactly how it failed, and it said "ah, yes, you are right, that should produce True, not false"... and spit out exactly the same code. ... So now the question is, is it overly mean to pick interview questions based on which ones can be extended in ways that GPT-4 doesn't understand? ;)
  - literalAardvark 4y ago
    I wouldn't say it's overly mean. I guess if they find some hard limits to transformer based intelligence, questions like that will be how we decide which things are worth learning.
  - hammyhavoc 4y ago
    I've encountered it agreeing I am correct then proceeding to serve the same code, or even worse, regressing and losing corrections made earlier. The longer you "talk" to it in a conversation, the worse the output becomes. It can feel like you're getting somewhere, but you're usually not. It's largely a waste of time, anybody who knows what they're doing will just do it properly. Anybody who doesn't know what they're doing will waste their time and likely never learn how to do things correctly, and their Dunning-Kruger complex will be in full-effect.
- alienicecream 4y ago
  Why are you personally offended that someone on the internet found GPT inadequate?
empath-nirvana 4y ago
To be clear, this would be an insane thing to actually run as it is. But you can run everything in dryRun if you just want to see what it would install. Although, and i just realized this, it'll possibly generate different code after you set dryRun to false, so i need to fix that somehow.
- majormajor 4y ago
  The idea I've had for things like this is a "run once and memoize" approach instead of regenerating each time. Kinda like a template, but with one key difference: if you only store the "template prompt" and modify that prompt you may get something pretty substantially different (and overly destructive a change!) from the original, so my idea there is to record the history of prompts + artifacts but always do modifications by asking GPT to apply a change to the memoized output, which then gets itself reviewed in dry-run before being saved.
  - empath-nirvana 4y ago
    yeah that was what i was going to do, this is a spare time project though so it'll have to wait for the weekend. It does return the previous output on requests to update it, but it's by no means guaranteed to return the same results. It does most of the time, though, if the description hasn't changed.

literalAardvark 4y ago

So ask it to review the result for issues and then send it to rework. You know, like everyone does. Why are you expecting it to be better than us?

op00to 4y ago
Some of us don’t understand how to accept mistakes and think we have to be perfect but we will never be perfect so we work harder and … how do I make burnout a prompt?
- thewataccount 4y ago
  > Some of us don’t understand how to accept mistakes I might be miss-interpreting you and the parent but - this mistake results in leaking my personal private ssh key into a docker image that could be made public. This is not a mistake that should be acceptable. If you made it accidentally that's one thing, but I'm not accepting GPT4's first, second, or third attempts (I gave up on that prompt) that make that mistake.
  - op00to 4y ago
    I was joking that for most people, we can't do what the parent post wants, which is to learn from our mistakes. For people this often leads to burnout. :)
thewataccount 4y ago
> So ask it to review the result for issues and then send it to rework. I did, and it made the same mistake just in a slightly different way. I've seen it do this before with other problems where it just can't understand what it's mistake was. Also because the image would have built correctly and have works, it wouldn't even know there's a problem with the autogpt/langchain setups people have been doing. The scary part to me is most newbies wouldn't be able to recognize the problem - adding a file embeds it into the image layer, even if you remove the file later in the build process.
- literalAardvark 4y ago
  Sorry, I think I phrased the question poorly. I meant that everyone makes dumb mistakes (and sometimes catches them) all the time, not that everyone asks GPT multiple times. And sometimes those mistakes are hard to catch.
Pamar 4y ago
the problem is if the error that it makes are subtle enough to be missed by the guy/gal who decided that "now I can take care of the Kubernetes install without even having to go to StackOverflow or whatever... you know, a place where other people with some experience can point out errors in the proposed solutions".
- thewataccount 4y ago
  Yeah exactly. I'm not sure how many people would recognize that adding a file in one RUN and then removing it in another RUN during a Dockerfile build would result in the file still existing in one of the layers. IMO that's a good example of a critical bug (leaked private ssh key) that would be difficult to spot for even someone who's semi-comfortable with Dockerfiles and just isn't familiar with exactly how the build processes works and realizes that it will be an issue. Again it looks really correct and I think would have worked with no errors.
majormajor 4y ago
I'd settle for "as good as", not "better." I've had several similar experiences as the above poster. Most recently, I was playing around with an interview question and removed a constraint and asked it to update its solution for it. It gave a new solution, but it still didn't work on the new, harder input. I pointed out exactly how it failed, and it said "ah, yes, you are right, that should produce True, not false"... and spit out exactly the same code. ... So now the question is, is it overly mean to pick interview questions based on which ones can be extended in ways that GPT-4 doesn't understand? ;)
- literalAardvark 4y ago
  I wouldn't say it's overly mean. I guess if they find some hard limits to transformer based intelligence, questions like that will be how we decide which things are worth learning.
- hammyhavoc 4y ago
  I've encountered it agreeing I am correct then proceeding to serve the same code, or even worse, regressing and losing corrections made earlier. The longer you "talk" to it in a conversation, the worse the output becomes. It can feel like you're getting somewhere, but you're usually not. It's largely a waste of time, anybody who knows what they're doing will just do it properly. Anybody who doesn't know what they're doing will waste their time and likely never learn how to do things correctly, and their Dunning-Kruger complex will be in full-effect.
alienicecream 4y ago
Why are you personally offended that someone on the internet found GPT inadequate?

empath-nirvana 4y ago

To be clear, this would be an insane thing to actually run as it is. But you can run everything in dryRun if you just want to see what it would install. Although, and i just realized this, it'll possibly generate different code after you set dryRun to false, so i need to fix that somehow.

majormajor 4y ago
The idea I've had for things like this is a "run once and memoize" approach instead of regenerating each time. Kinda like a template, but with one key difference: if you only store the "template prompt" and modify that prompt you may get something pretty substantially different (and overly destructive a change!) from the original, so my idea there is to record the history of prompts + artifacts but always do modifications by asking GPT to apply a change to the memoized output, which then gets itself reviewed in dry-run before being saved.
- empath-nirvana 4y ago
  yeah that was what i was going to do, this is a spare time project though so it'll have to wait for the weekend. It does return the previous output on requests to update it, but it's by no means guaranteed to return the same results. It does most of the time, though, if the description hasn't changed.