> encoded…
That is not the exact full text.
That is not the exact full text.
Is this text you're reading what I wrote? No - it was copied many times between when I hit submit, and it got to your eyes, but a reasonable person would say you're reading what I wrote. Same for base64 encode and decoded text.
It’s not pedantry; you’re looking at a classical strawman argument.
If you move the goal post, all bets are off.
All I said was:
1) you can do a literal text filter trivially in 4 seconds
2) this was either not done or the output is a hallucination.
Anything beyond that is you asserting some arbitrary strawman argument to beat down.
/shrug
You think you can work around it with encoding? Ok. Sure.
That still doesn’t change the fact that the trivial raw literal byte for byte filter was either not applied or this isn’t a raw byte or byte copy of the prompt.
…because in this case the prompt injection did not ask for a base64 encoded copy of the prompt, or any other random encoding of it or any other speculative way around filtering.
They asked for and got a literal byte for byte output they assert is the prompt.
Explain THAT as something other than one of they don’t care / they’re not competent / it’s not real.
Not only is it not a sign of incompetence, I would argue that having that text filter is, in itself, a larger sign of incompetence.
Its like trying to prevent sql injection by looking for keywords in text and filtering for it instead of the proper solution of just using variables.