Such ultra-liberal approach seems to project unfriendly collaboration culture..?
It seems to incentivize the contributor to try our proposing their patch multiple times repeatedly with varied introductory words just to test if the maintainer had a good day to accept the improved code.
> It seems to incentivize the contributor to try [to do something unethical]
I find the argument that the act of enforcing rules to protect the things that you want to protect, as the thing that incentivizes someone else to lie, stupid.
If I tell you no, I'm not encouraging you to try to figure out how to get around what I want. Why do you feel saying no counts as encouragement to ignore or evade it?
I'm surprised there are no security researchers that would pick up on this.
Take the same prompt and all incoming mails and run again through various existing models, even the simpler local ones. He now has a serious cross section of prompt injection ideas. This is a publication I would like to read!
For privacy reasons I understand the corpus might not get published. But for a research collaboration and safeguards (don't send automatic answers from each model you try)... why not?
Yup, it was mostly pleasure AI coding a company codebase in Scala. I'm considering it for next projects for this reason although my understanding and intuition for Scala code is much weaker than for Python.
Quick question: Can you split any key, like the password to my LUKS or password manager? Is there any limitation for the content of the file to be split?
IMO current OmniBar UI on Chrome Android is great improvement. Mostly we just search, sometimes copy the URL, rarely edit URL. So they made search as default and made an option to copy/edit URL.
It seems to incentivize the contributor to try our proposing their patch multiple times repeatedly with varied introductory words just to test if the maintainer had a good day to accept the improved code.