Here's what happened:
1. I responded to the quote and thread tokepi posted. I stand by that response—the supposed "prompt injection" was a trivial misunderstanding which Meta had already publicly clarified.
2. You sarcastically replied by linking me to another comment that said "pop up to that -er- blog's top level, scroll back until you find the start of the investigation, and then start reading." I read that as the top of the linked thread. You meant his profile page, which would have meant reading everything he'd posted since the investigation began to find the posts you had in mind, which came days later in separate threads. I noted I didn't read everything he wrote, clarified what I did read, and asked you to state your specific concern.
3. You didn't state it. You linked five more posts on issues unrelated to the thread I'd responded to. I acknowledged I hadn't seen those, said they were at least not trivially confused the way the first thread was, and bowed out because I shouldn’t discuss specifics of my employer’s security setup beyond what's been publicly disclosed (for obvious reasons).
4. You responded with more sarcasm and a lecture on "netiquette". Then you finished by explaining "prompt injection", which is strange: even @jonny acknowledged the supposed prompt injection from the initial thread was intended behavior, and the posts you linked provide no evidence of prompt injection. So you bringing it up calls into question whether you were actually parsing our conversation and jonny's investigation.
5. I tried twice to end this amicably. Both times you came back with insults and more lectures.
Do you think you upheld your own standards of "netiquette" and "healthy discourse" here? How is being simultaneously antagonistic while refusing to articulate your own perspective helpful to anyone?
1. I responded to the quote and thread tokepi posted. I stand by that response—the supposed "prompt injection" was a trivial misunderstanding which Meta had already publicly clarified.
2. You sarcastically replied by linking me to another comment that said "pop up to that -er- blog's top level, scroll back until you find the start of the investigation, and then start reading." I read that as the top of the linked thread. You meant his profile page, which would have meant reading everything he'd posted since the investigation began to find the posts you had in mind, which came days later in separate threads. I noted I didn't read everything he wrote, clarified what I did read, and asked you to state your specific concern.
3. You didn't state it. You linked five more posts on issues unrelated to the thread I'd responded to. I acknowledged I hadn't seen those, said they were at least not trivially confused the way the first thread was, and bowed out because I shouldn’t discuss specifics of my employer’s security setup beyond what's been publicly disclosed (for obvious reasons).
4. You responded with more sarcasm and a lecture on "netiquette". Then you finished by explaining "prompt injection", which is strange: even @jonny acknowledged the supposed prompt injection from the initial thread was intended behavior, and the posts you linked provide no evidence of prompt injection. So you bringing it up calls into question whether you were actually parsing our conversation and jonny's investigation.
5. I tried twice to end this amicably. Both times you came back with insults and more lectures.
Do you think you upheld your own standards of "netiquette" and "healthy discourse" here? How is being simultaneously antagonistic while refusing to articulate your own perspective helpful to anyone?