3 ms·
It’s easier not to have that separation, just like it was easier not to separate them before LLMs. This is architectural stuff that just hasn’t been figured out
by clickety_clack 6mo ago
It’s easier not to have that separation, just like it was easier not to separate them before LLMs. This is architectural stuff that just hasn’t been figured out yet.
- fzeindl 6mo agoNo. With databases there exists a clear boundary, the query planner, which accepts well defined input: the SQL-grammar that separates data (fields, literals) from control (keywords). There is no such boundary within an LLM. There might even be, since LLMs seem to form adhoc-programs, but we have no way of proving or seeing it.
- TeMPOraL 6mo agoThere cannot be, without compromising the general-purpose nature of LLMs. This includes its ability to work with natural languages, which as one should note, has no such boundary either. Nor does the actual physical reality we inhabit.
- hnuser123456 6mo agoThere is a system prompt, but most LLMs don't seem to "enforce" it enough.
- embedding-shape 6mo agoSince GPS-OSS there is also the Harmony response format (https://github.com/openai/harmony https://github.com/openai/harmony) that instead of just having a system/assistant/user split in the roles, instead have system/developer/user/assistant/tool, and it seems to do a lot better at actually preventing users from controlling the LLM too much. The hierarchy basically becomes "system > developer > user > assistant > tool" with this.