Uncensor any LLM with abliteration

I played around with Amazon Q and while setting it up, I needed to create an IAM identity center.

Never did this before, so I was asking Q in the AWS docs how to do it.

It refused to help, as it didn't answer security related questions.

thank.

it’s similar asking the gemini-1.5 models about coding questions that involve auth

one of my questions about a login form also tripped a harassment flag

I suspect the refusal to answer questions about auth aren't a matter of hacking or offensive material.

I suspect instead the people training these models have identified areas of questioning where their model is 99% right, but because the 1% wrong is incredibly costly they dodge the entire question.

Would you want your LLM to give out any legal advice, or medical advice, or can-I-eat-this-mushroom advice, if you knew due to imperfections in your training process, it sometimes recommended people put glue in their pizza sauce?

"If you can't take a little bloody nose, maybe you ought to go back home and crawl under your bed. It's not safe out here. It's wondrous, with treasures to satiate desires both subtle and gross... but it's not for the timid."

So sure, the LLM occasionally pranks someone, in a way similar to how random Internet posts do; it is confidently wrong, in a way similar to how most text on the Internet is confidently wrong because content marketers don't give a damn about correctness, that's not what the text is there for. As much as this state of things pains me, general population has mostly adapted.

Meanwhile, people who would appreciate a model that's 99% right on things where the 1% is costly, rightfully continue to ignore Gemini and other models by companies too afraid to play in the field for real.

The only underlying question here is "who is liable for the output of the LLM?"

I just don't think the "nobody is" current solution is going to last in the current litigious environment.

Good point. Since LLM isn't a person, this leaves only the vendor and the user as liable parties. That's one less legal person than in regular search, where you have the user, the search engine vendor, and the author/publisher of the content involved in a harm scenario.

What is the consensus on liability in case of regular web search? Your comment made me realize that I never thought much about it in 20+ years of using the Internet; I kind of always assumed it's all on the user.

> What is the consensus on liability in case of regular web search? Your comment made me realize that I never thought much about it in 20+ years of using the Internet

Have you never noticed those "google has removed some results to comply with the DMCA" notices?