3 ms·
If you do not provide access to tools the LLM cannot do anything other than generate tokens. So really it is not about sandboxing a LLM but more about having co
by richardjennings 1mo ago
If you do not provide access to tools the LLM cannot do anything other than generate tokens. So really it is not about sandboxing a LLM but more about having control over what tools can be accessed and what they can do. Tools can be sandboxed depending on the sophistication of the tooling. A calculator tool for example is trivial to secure. Ensuring human approval allows for useful use cases and models trained to gate permissions work. A super intelligence with a weaker approval gate will be able to subvert. Inversely a super intelligent gate should be expected to prevent subversion by a weaker model.
- dumbfounder 1mo agoControlling which tools it has access to is called sandboxing.
- foltik 1mo agoNot really. Take Chrome for example. It controls what javascript APIs websites have access to. Still needs separate sandboxing.
- angry_octet 1mo agoUnfortunately it is not so simple. Once you provide a source of intelligence that is accessible over the network you are supercharging any software that can access it. Web interfaces (chat) designed for humans can very easily be used by programs, you don't actually need API keys. Any program which can submit queries can then be subverted by its input. Malware can definitely find corporate chat interfaces like Teams Copilot. "Business intelligence" systems can also be leveraged, they rarely have good ACLs.