3 ms·
Calling something "dangerous" (or even "illegal") is a great way to get LLMs to ignore it, they bend over backwards to avoid anything that could be potentially
by embedding-shape 8mo ago
Calling something "dangerous" (or even "illegal") is a great way to get LLMs to ignore it, they bend over backwards to avoid anything that could be potentially "dangerous" even when you acknowledge the risks. I'm guessing it's the "safety alignment" or whatever being done in a very extreme way.
- throwaw12 8mo agosorry, have you used Claude Code or are you a bot? "--dangerously-skip-permissions" - is a flag, irrelevant to LLM
- nl 8mo agoHow to tell if someone has never used Claude Code...
- deleted 8mo ago[deleted]
- rdevilla 8mo ago[flagged]
- unholiness 8mo agoThe relevance is that Claude made this cheat sheet.
- ticulatedspline 8mo agoAuthor stated they used Claude to compose the document. I believe they were alluding to the idea that Claude's own safety alignment prevented it from documenting the flag because it's called dangerous.
- embedding-shape 8mo agoYes, use it every day :) And very much a human, AFAIK. My point is that if you ask "Hey Claude, please write out all common and useful command line arguments into a commands.html file", the LLM that actually does that work, might ignore anything that says "dangerous" or gives that indication, because the LLM doesn't think potentially dangerous commands could be "common" and/or "useful". Hope my point makes sense now.
- johnisgood 8mo agoI wonder why that is. It is quick to tell me if something is dangerous and then continues to push back if I speak in favor of something that it considers dangerous.
- yoyohello13 8mo agoIt's also a great way to ensure humans will absolutely use it.