4 ms·
> I don't think anyone is sure what that will look like with LLMs, but I don't see any reason to assume a priori that there is no way to define a safe subset of
by logicchains 3y ago
> I don't think anyone is sure what that will look like with LLMs, but I don't see any reason to assume a priori that there is no way to define a safe subset of the possible prompts.
That would essentially require a "non-Turing-complete" prompt language. Because if the prompt language was effectively Turing complete, it'd be impossible to determine whether every possible prompt would produce a "safe" outcome or not. This would severely limit what the LLM could do even compared to GPT3.5.
>Again, we did it with type systems and proof assistants.
Proof assistants require a human to provide the actual proof whether something is safe (correct) or not; they can't do it automatically except for very limited, simple classes of programs.
- eru 3y agoYes, you don't want a Turing complete language. They allow too much. > Proof assistants require a human to provide the actual proof whether something is safe (correct) or not; they can't do it automatically except for very limited, simple classes of programs. Finding a proof is in NP (at least if you restrict yourself to proofs that are short enough that a human might have a chance to write it out in their lifetime). So computers can do it.