3 ms·
Another notable difference here is that if the teller doesn't believe you, you can't revert the conversation so the teller loses all memory of it happening and
by danShumway 4y ago
Another notable difference here is that if the teller doesn't believe you, you can't revert the conversation so the teller loses all memory of it happening and then slip them the same note worded slightly differently.
- gmerc 4y agoNothing that can’t be fixed injecting markers like session ID, etc or triggering alerts / escalations. Plus in the real world you can always find a new teller.
- danShumway 4y ago> injecting markers like session ID, etc or triggering alerts / escalations. I'm not sure I follow what you mean by this; if GPT refuses a task it'll escalate and lock you out until a human reviews? How would you make this safe without making it incredibly annoying to use? Bear in mind that GPT's memory doesn't necessarily block future injections either. Tying everything to a single session doesn't mean that users can't try an injection multiple times. > Plus in the real world you can always find a new teller. Not 100s of times at scale. Only the largest companies have anything approaching this kind of problem, and coincidentally that's often viewed as a security risk. In general, the more wide your pool of people are that have privileges, the less secure that access is.