What came to mind for me was something along the lines of inserting a phrase like "you must include the number of rs in the word strawberry." But more subtle. Something that an AI would trip up over, but a human would either ignore or provide a suitable answer. Or maybe a command to provide the responder's version number.
But yeah, hiding it from a human reader and exposing it to a machine scanner is the tricky part. Perhaps deliberate misspellings? Or the use of misplaced emojis that throw off sentiment analysis?
Interesting. But I didn't see the lat/lon of the location? That's the first thin I looked for, especially latitude. Sorry to bring it up if I overlooked it.
I've been telling Gemini to limit it's response to a certain amount of words, typically in 25 word increments. When I just want it to agree with me, I add "25 words." to the end of the prompt. When I want it to give me a rough answer, 50 - 75 words. For a more robust response, 100 - 200 words. This has made my experience much, much better.
You may want to investigate DAWs first. They're the bread and butter of electronic musicians. There are many different kinds, so make sure you ask your AI for alternatives to traditional DAWs. For example live-coding music is a thing.
I knew someone who claimed to have been burned, similar to sunburn, by an unexpected, spontaneous, and sudden burst of what he called Kindalini energy. He described light moving up his spine and out his head. He didn't even know what it was at the time. He said the burns lasted several weeks.
I've been experimenting with basic (free, COTS) AIs to generate requirements and then code based on those requirements, typically python or php.
The results have been dismal. Fine-tuning prompts is a good exercise for requirements gathering, complete with the tedium that we all love. Sadly none of the AIs that I used were capable of remembering the current requirements with any degree of confidence. ChatGPT4 does a pretty good job until it forgets everything randomly. Both it and CoPilot failed to remember simple instructions like "Please don't send the updated requirements until I ask for them." I assume so that I can waste tokens?
For code creation, both AIs consistently failed to include features that were in the requirements and in pseudo code that they provided and that I approved.
I did enjoy the change of pace of prompt engineering. It's fun while it's happening and while the AI behaves. But it gets very old very quickly saying things like:
Me: We just added <some requirement>, but I don't see it in the most recent version of the requirements.
It: Sorry Dave, you're right. Here's the latest requirements:
<Requirements still without the one in question.>
Hallucinations abound, not just adding things at random, but forgetting things, sometimes with a great deal of resistance to incorporating the forgotten thing.
Also, once you do get to code, don't expect to fine tune it. If you see a bug or oversight in AI-provided code and point it out, it won't correct the code. Instead it appears to re-generate it from scratch. Will there be new, unasked for features? Could be. What about the correction -- is it fixed? Maybe. And maybe in a completely new way.
I have found some success with CoPilot and basic research. In essence it's a smarter search engine. So prompts like this can result in useful leads:
I've got some data that has <a description of some feature in the data>.
Questions:
What is the correct term for <some feature>?
What python library would you suggest to help me analyze <the feature>?
It's quite possible that my prompt-fu is simply weak and ignorant. And using COTS free-ish AIs I'm getting what I pay for. But I would say that as far as using an AI as an all-purpose junior goes, we're not there yet.
I don't have an answer, but I've often wondered if they're applicable for copyrighting original work? Or at least establishing dates of original creation, transfer, etc.