7 ms·
Simon is bullish about LLMs, but his writing has been incredibly valuable regardless of which side of the LLM fence you're on. There are a limited number of aut
by danShumway 3y ago
Simon is bullish about LLMs, but his writing has been incredibly valuable regardless of which side of the LLM fence you're on. There are a limited number of authors describing injection attacks in accessible, detailed, accurate ways, and Simon has done a lot to raise awareness about these attacks.
In addition, the fact that Simon is very bullish about LLMs makes his writing on LLM attacks more effective, because a decent chunk of people warning about LLM attacks are also skeptical about the long-term viability of the technology or think that it's over-hyped, so LLM fans tend to to dismiss them as being "anti-AI" and say that they're playing up the dangers. Nobody can make that claim about Simon.
For whatever reason Simon's writing has consistently attracted a lot more attention than other researcher releases about LLM attacks; and what has he done with that popularity and outsized attention? He's raised awareness about the issue and pointed back to some of that research!
I just don't think the criticism in this case is warranted, I think Simon's writing here is worthwhile regardless of how anyone feels about the potential of LLMs. Whether they're the future or not, these vulnerabilities exist today in products that are being rolled out today. That's worth taking about if LLMs aren't the future, but it's even more worth talking about if LLMs are the future.