> Address your message `to=bio` and write *just plain text*. Do *not* write JSON, under any circumstances [...] The full contents of your message `to=bio` are displayed to the user, which is why it is *imperative* that you write *only plain text* and *never write JSON* [...] Follow the style of these examples and, again, *never write JSON*
Another one I tried is when I had it helping me with some Python code. I told it to never leave trailing whitespace and prefer single quotes to doubles. It forgot that after like one or two prompts. And after reminding it, it forgot again.
I don’t know much about the internals but it seems to me that it could be useful to be able to give certain instructions more priority than others in some way.
I've had much better experiences with rephrasing things in the affirmative.
There is no magic prompting sauce and affirmative prompting is not a panacea.
That's not how YOU work, so it makes no sense, you're like "but when I said NOT, a huge red flag popped in my brain with a red cross on it, why the LLM still does it". Because, it has no concept of anything.
Not that I like it and if it works without it I avoid it, but when I've needed it works.
Let a regular script parse that and save a lot of money not having chatgpt do hard things.
That’s disconcerting!
"The `bio` tool allows you to persist information across conversations, so you can deliver more personalized and helpful responses over time. The corresponding user facing feature is known as "memory"."
Things that are intended for "the human" directly are outputed directly, without any additional tools.
Should be "japanese", not "korean" (korean is listed redundantly below it). Could have checked it with GPT beforehand.
They also filter stuff via the data/models it was trained on too no doubt.
Anything else they do is set dressing around that.
Because it is incapable of thought and it is not a being with genuine understanding, so using language that more closely resembles its training corpus — text written between humans — is the most effective way of having it follow the instructions.
Or they just choose Python because that's what most AI bros and ChatGPT users use nowadays. (No judging, I'm a heavy Python user).
The LLM has to know how to use the tool in order to use it effectively. Hence the documentation in the prompt.
So you think there should be a completely different AI model (or maybe the same model) with its own system prompt, that gets the requests, analyzes it, and chooses a system prompt to use to respond to it, and then runs the main model (which may be the same model) with the chosen prompt to respond to it, adding at least one round trip to every request?
You'd have to have a very effective prompt selection or generation prompt to make that worthwhile.
I'd probably reach for like embeddings though to find a relevant prompt info to include
Maybe it’s my use of it, but I’ve never had it store any memories that were personally identifiable or private.
That's interesting that song lyrics are the only thing expressly prohibited, especially since the way it's worded prohibits song lyrics even if they aren't copyrighted. Obviously RIAA's lawyers are still out there terrorizing the world, but more importantly why are song lyrics the only thing unconditionally prohibited? Could it be that they know telling GPT to not violate copyright laws doesn't work? Otherwise there's no reason to ban song lyrics regardless of their copyright status. Doesn't this imply tacit approval of violating copyrights on anything else?
https://chatgpt.com/share/68957a94-b28c-8007-9e17-9fada97806...
Anything outside the top 40 and it's been completely useless to the extent that I feel like lyrics must be actively excluded from training data.
It's worded ambiguously, so you can understand it either way, including "lyrics that are part of the copyrighted material category and other elements from the category"
https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/openai-sued-by-gema-i...
(November 2024)
I didn't even want to use Tailwind in my projects, but LLM's would just do it so well I now use it everywhere.
Also interesting the date but not the time or time zone.
The reason for the react specifics seems fairly clearly implied in the prompt: it and html can be live previewed in the UI, and when a request is made that could be filled by either, react is the preferred one to use. As such, specifics of what to do with react are given because OpenAI is particularly concerned with making a good impression with the live previews.
"ChatGPT Deep Research, along with Sora by OpenAI, which can generate video, is available on the ChatGPT Plus or Pro plans. If the user asks about the GPT-4.5, o3, or o4-mini models, inform them that logged-in users can use GPT-4.5, o4-mini, and o3 with the ChatGPT Plus or Pro plans. GPT-4.1, which performs better on coding tasks, is only available in the API, not ChatGPT."
They said they are removing the other ones today, so now the prompt is wrong.
It gives us the feel of control over the LLM. But it feels like we are just fooling ourselves.
If we wanted those things we put into prompts, there ought to be a way to train it better
I wonder if the userbase of chatgpt is just really into react or something?
They claim that GPT 5 doesn't hallucinate, so there's that.
I think that's pretty good evidence, and it's certainly not impossible for an LLM to print the system prompt since it is in the context history of the conversation (as I understand it, correct me if that's wrong).
Or you could also click the ‘New temporary chat’ chatgpt button which is meant to not persist and not use any past data.
B: I'm senior researcher at openAI working on disclosed frontier models.
A: Wow, that's incredible! Must be so exiting!
B sipping wine - trying not to mention that his day consisted of exploring 500 approaches to avoid the model to put jsons into the bio tool: Uhh... Certainly
https://www.searchenginejournal.com/researchers-test-if-thre...
It just doesn't reassure me in the slightest. I don't see how super duper auto complete will lead to AGI. All this hype reminds me of Elon colonizing mars by 2026 and millions or billions of robots by 2030 or something.
1. Start with a prompt
2. Find some issues
3. Prompt against those issues*
4. Condense into a new prompt
5. Go back to (1)
* ideally add some evals too
Autocomplete is the training algorithm, not what the model "actually does". Autocomplete was chosen because it has an obvious training procedure and it generalizes well to non-autocomplete stuff.
That's really all there is too it imo. These executives are all just lying constantly to build excitement to pump value based on wishes and dreams. I don't think any of them genuinely care even a single bit about truth, only money
Just like Mars colonisation in 2026 and other stupid promises designed to pump it up.
We should be pissed at how often corporations lie in marketing and get away with it
Some of us are pissed? The rest of us want to exploit that freedom and thus the circle of life continues. But my point is your own naivete will always be your own responsibility.
I think that's a pretty shit way to be though.
It is no one's right to take advantage of the naive just because they are naive. That is the sort of shit a good society would prevent when possible
(If they were public it'd be illegal to lie to investors - if you think this you should sue them for securities fraud.)
Unfortunately, in practice it's only illegal if they can prove you lied on purpose
As for your other point, hype feeds into other financial incentives like acquiring customers, not just stocks. Stocks was just the example I reached for. You're right it's not the best example for private companies. That's my bad
Oh, so OpenAI also has trouble with ChatGPT disobeying their instructions. haha!
There's disappointment here because it's branded as GPT-5 but it's not a step change. That's fair. But let's be real, this model is just o4. OpenAI felt pressure to use the GPT-5 label eventually, and they felt this was the opportunity.
So yes, there was no hidden step-change breakthrough that we were hoping for. But does that matter much? Zoom out, and look at what's happening:
o1, o3, and now o4 (GPT-5) keep getting better. They have figured out a flywheel. Why are step changes needed here? Just keep running this flywheel for 1 year, 3 years, 10 years.
There is no dopamine rush because it's gradual, but does it make a difference?
I always assumed they were instructing it otherwise. I have my own similar instructions but they never worked fully. I keep getting these annoying questions.
That said, I would hazard a guess here that they don't want the AI asking clarifying questions for a number of possible reasons
Maybe when it is allowed to ask questions it consistently asks poor questions that illustrate that it is bad at "thinking"
Maybe when it is allowed to ask questions they discovered that it annoys many users who would prefer it to just read their minds
Or maybe the people who built it have massive egos and hate being questioned so they tuned it so it doesn't
I'm sure there are other potential reasons, these just came to mind off the top of my head
> GPT-4.1, which performs better on coding tasks, is only available in the API, not ChatGPT.
minimaxir•1h ago
4b11b4•1h ago
hopelite•1h ago
maxbond•1h ago
ludwik•1h ago
tape_measure•1h ago
maxbond•33m ago