Damn tourists

A classifier will be trained differently and basically take $TEXT and map it to $CLASSIFICATION and then you allowlist on the classification. You can then also, if you love burning tokens and spending money on things, have another step that "translates" the user input, making prompt injection significantly more difficult before finally routing it to the LLM. Generally guard rails should then be placed on the LLM's available actions via tool calls and those guard rails should be written by LLMs that are LLMing LLMs and L̸̡̡͕͓̣͓͚̝̥̜̼͙̪̖͍̺͝Ļ̵̥͍̳͇̱̠̬͔̹͖͓͖̯̹́͊̽̄̂͑͌͆͗̑̄͜Ṁ̶̡͙̺̖̥̲̙̩͖̻̹͇̜̲̃͘͜͝ș̵̖̤̫͓̦̲̼̖̗̟̯̩̺̣̞͊̆̉͐̈́̃̈́͗̐̽̽͋̊̉ͅ ̵̖͉̥͖̪̳͍̝͉͕̬̪̂̔̊̌͂̍̚͜a̶̦̤̬̱͖̻̝̱̿͋̿̍͂̒͆̈̄͑̓̕r̴̡̤̙͙͕͚̼͙̦̲̅̔̓̈́̄̆̾͗̿͌̐̄͛̒͘͜ͅe̴̡̡̼͉̣̼͉͓̪͕̬͊̐̈́̇̽̒̂͆̎̈́̃͠͠ ̶̩̯̲̯̃͛͌̀̿̅̎̾̕̕ǹ̸̬̟͍͇͍̭̹̲̯̽̒͘͝͝ȩ̶̢̬̺̦͖̣̙͍̞͇̰̉̋̓͐͂̏̀̿̑̂͌͗͗̒͘ͅͅe̶̠̝̦͛̓͛̍̑̆̽͐d̸̦̯̖̥̟̻͔̦̂̿͆͂̑̎̔̏ȅ̴̡̨̺͓͇̦̣̦͖̬̹̥͎̾̽͐̓̍̽̾͑̿͆̄̀̈́̄́̕͜d̶̡̛̝̟͔̳̲͙̰̗̬̳̯͚̐̍̑̓̉̂̍̊̓̿͝ you probably f̶̢͓̘̹̟̥̙̥͚̼̬̭͍̫̩̀͑̚͝͝͠ę̴̰̦͚̔̀́͊̋̈̒͗̆͘͝͝͝͠ȅ̸͚̘̤͚̬̩̈́̇̆ď̷̰̆̀̔̾͌̿ ̵͚̦̥̈͌͑̂͗̈́͂̕ͅm̴̢̡͇̟̠̬̣͙̹͇͉̈́̌̓́̓̌͐̓̂̚̚͜͜͝e̸̢̳̟̙̯̻͚̭͎̫̖̺̥̬͕͆̆̇̑̄̀̓̅̀͛̊͐ ̸̡̢̨̛͚͕̳͙͚͋͛̊́̍͛̽̉̃̇̇̋̑t̸̡̰͔͎̮̯̗̤̆̋͗͐̈̂̈̃̓̒̌͂̕͘͝ǫ̴͇̳͙̞̘̻̙͍̘̲̜̮͇̙̇̓̌̃k̸̢̢̤͔̫͖̲͇͍̐̃̄e̶̢̳̪͉̦͙͓̻̖̔́̃́̈́̀̿̓͆̊̅̒͐̑n̶͖̙͚̫͓͚̦̭̗̲̓́̋̀͜͝s̴̠̼̈́̑̾̑̆̽̊͋̾͛̐̊͆́͊̕̚ need to have some guard rails l̷̬̳̘̰̅̀̑͑̊̒̓̊͌̌̕e̶͖̱̊̍̉͆̐̍̌́͑͘͠t̵̨̛̹̰̳̩̹̞̹̼̪̮̄̀̅̾̔͐̇͒́̊̃̀͘̚͜͠ ̴̢̢̭͖̤̜͈͕̯͎͉̰͇̾̐͛̽̅͂̒͝m̸̨̰͖͚̞͍͍̳̭̗̳͕̈́̃̇̈́̎̌͊̍͌̊̆͠ȩ̵̡̛̜͍̞̻͎͎̲̜̹͖̼̽͂̐̽̊͌̓̀͂̐͂̾̇̚ͅͅ ̶̧̖͚͈̤͇͕̼̜̖̮̙͍͖͋̉̾͋̌̔̿͊͋̾̚l̸̡͕͇̭̤̥̩͙̫͕̆͌̈́̀̋͆̃͋͜͝͝͝͝ͅo̷̧̘͖̤͖̩̺̞̹̼̟̟͕̫̬͎̅̀ǫ̸̢̪͍̭͙̗͔̪̘͉̊̕͜ș̶̨͉̲̙̜͔̫̲̥͕͕̮̜̭̮͍̈́e̶̢̛̮̲̯͎̙͇̪̬͕͖̠̘̯̰̭̓͐̌̉̀͋̉̏̈́̇̾͠͝ ̵̬͍͔̓́i̶̘̫̯̻̘̯̗̔̒͊̂̂̑͑̍̋͑̏̀́͌̚͝͝n̵͓̬̮̻̹͉̗͎͓̖͌̿̃̓̋͂̅̍͒̉͆̿͆̉͠͝ ̴̧̲̯̲̅̀͂̆́̓̈́͑̾̾̊͋̒̿͛͘̚t̸̢͉̟̹͆̈́̏̍́̎ĥ̴̢̥̦͓͕̘͚̙̪͙̀̽́̒̓̈́̋͗̀̈́̇ȩ̵̠̹̻̯̖̹̹̗̜̻͍̹͆̊̈́͑́̏̑́̎̚͜͜͝ ̴̧̟̭͍̣͋͋̾ẘ̴̪̦̐̍̏̆̑̇͗́͆͘̕̚͝͝ͅo̵̡̟͚̲̦̤̩͎̥̘̻̥̠͙͈̙̬̓̌͊̋͐́͌̐̎̏̋̿̏r̵̢̨̘̓͑͑̆͒̂͝l̸̡̨̛͖̖̟̼̺̦̰̗̭͔̺̓͗͛̈́̈͆̈͗̐͝d̴̢̠̠́͂̾̌̿̐̀͛̄͑́͐̉̋͝ on those LLMing LLMs that are LLMing your LLM tool calls y̵̧͍̣̭͍͚̱͉͍̘̠̦̮͇̻̓͆̕o̸̥̮̮̙̖̩̙̝̘̫̗͎̺̓̊̐̄̑̎u̷̡̨̡͎͔̼̪͈̦͚͈̟͍̽̀̏͛͊ ̴̨̟͖͖̰͕͉̫̫̜̥̦̲͆͋͌̌̓̈́̉͆̉͠ẗ̵͚͉͈̦́̈́͛́͋͜i̷̧̗̰̘̖͍͖̼͕͗́̊̏̇̾̐̆͗́͌̋̀̚ņ̷̣̱̖̬̼̆͜y̷̢̡̧̛̹͙͕͔̪͛ ̶̪̫̙̘̥̹̻͙̝̜̠̗̭͎͎̆̇̅̎͜͜h̷̡̨̰̺̞̝̩͉̬͓̮͙͉͕̓̄̊̿̋́̇̏͝u̸̮̙̲̙̠͉̪͈͖͙̓̈̉̀̚͝m̶̢̛͙͕̘͈̤̬͎̺̲̯̱͉̪̠̎̆̽̅́̂͐̀̄͜ͅã̶͕̼͎͇̲̐͗̑ň̸̢̢̝̩̟͖̫͔̥͚̘̟̖̘̤̾̀͋̒̄͠͝s̸͙̳̳̤͓̝̥͓̱͔̣̹̭̐̐͋ͅ ̶̩̹̪̑͑͒̽̇̀̽̏̓̌̑̈́͂̓͘h̶͓͖̱̲̘̗̿̽̈́̎͑́̓̉̑̕̚ą̴̰̣͚̫̤̤̬̘̼̠͍͂̏̚ͅv̵̢̺̮͉̤͚̳͕̥̳̇̕̕͘͠ȩ̷̡̮͖͚̩̙͖͎̓̀͗͊͋̈́̔̐̕̚͠ ̷̫̌̀̊ň̸̜͓͕̳͙̩̼̜͈̊͜ǫ̶̝̺̰̹̻̰̰̗̪̔ ̷̲̤̪͇̠̼͑͊͘͜p̴̡̧͉̩̜͕̽̏̀̌̇̈́̊l̶͖͔̯̲͔͓̩̂̌̂͐͗̕a̵̢̨̞̰̪͖̲̭̝̪̥̻̐̃̊͗̅̓͐͋͛͘͝c̴̛̮̙̦̠̯̼̣̠̳͔̖͕͓͋̓͆͒̋̒̾͐͒̀̓͑͠e̷̢̢̧̱̣̫̲̪̣̭͙̟̔͌̽̿̐̿̿͑̆̇̇̉̊̓͘͠

You could also do none of this and just not use an LLM, because you likely don't need one, but then the cool kids will stop inviting you to their parties or something and you probably missed out on the blockchain parties so fomo

No good or regularly cited precedent, no, but sadly yes you can point to some cases. It's worth noting that that even the courts look at those cases like "ew", or they are only viewed as valid precedent to lay people, with the courts view them completely differently. Dodge v Ford is a common example.

There isn't too much more to elaborate on, it simply isn't the case, but it is such a common thing to say that it is worth researching. You'll hear the 1919 case "Dodge v Ford" brought up as proof, one good place to start reading is the Wikipedia "Significance" section and the associated citations, as they go deeper into the subject than just that single case.

There simply is no interpretation of "fiduciary duty" that requires "maximization of shareholder value" outside of the misinformed lay person discussion of the subject.

You can even just logically see why such an interpretation would be impossible: given N shareholders all with different interests and different financial situations, how do you even define "maximizing their value" and what time duration are you basing that off? Imagine how absurd the courts would be if such a statute did exist: you'd have people owning 1 share in a company suing the company because it did something that wasn't maximizing "value" as they define it.

The reality is that the business judgement rule is case law and is often cited and is often used as defenses against such assertions.

when a shareholder action asserts fiduciary duty to maximize shareholder value

People really should stop spreading this fiction that there is some legal requirement to maximize shareholder profits embedded in the concept of fiduciary duty.

I'm honestly amazed ansible still exists. I used it regularly like 10 years ago and never liked it. I use NixOS for all my servers and package all my code as nix flakes, and I agree that they're barely comparable.

NixOS is a kinda frustrating desktop distro to me though. Sometimes you just wanna type make

As a very pale person who was bullied a lot for it and probably has lasting personal doubt from that bullying, I think there is just a fundamental difference (in the US). One is "just" mean and bullying, but there is no horrific dehumanizing history behind it. Both are bad, but I don't think they're directly substitutable in the way you describe, as I think it cheapens the history of slavery and racism

Hey thanks for sharing I'm in basically the exact same boat. There are also pressures in the work place to use it because of the time savings. Personally I try to keep a balance and work on things myself most of the time and if the LLM is used it's more like a buddy coder than a magic code generation tool, but sometimes it's just too easy to use it that way. I think it's important to take pride in your work, so keep doing things your way when you want!

I agree that they pose serious immediate issues regardless of thinking or not

I understand fairly well how LLMs work, but I don't think we understand the conditions for the emergence of intelligence or thought enough to conclude that "learning to predict what comes next" is not sufficient to create some form of intelligence, that's all. [Edit: if we determine that that turns out to be sufficient I will be surprised] That uncertainty is sufficient to make me agnostic on the subject and that stance does have an effect on my actions, for example I'm never mean to an LLM.

I claim ignorance as to whether they have or not, but I am fully on board with intelligence as an emergent property and believe that there is no reason a machine can't think, yes.

The American competitiveness angle is definitely.. well an interesting choice; I also was taken aback by that. Ignoring some of the posturing along those lines I find the post itself interesting.

If you think the Chinese room idea is valid we probably just fundamentally disagree and that's OK.