Uncensor any LLM with abliteration

> Modern LLMs are fine-tuned for safety and instruction-following, meaning they are trained to refuse harmful requests.

It's sad that it's now an increasingly accepted idea that information one seeks can be "harmful".

This specific rhetoric aside, I really don't have any problem with people censoring their models. If I, as an individual, had the choice between handing out instructions on how to make sarin gas on the street corner or not doing it, I'd choose the latter. I don't think the mere information is itself harmful, but I can see that it might have some bad effects in the future. That seems to be all it comes down to. People making models have decided they want the models to behave a certain way. They paid to create them and you don't have a right to have a model that will make racist jokes or whatever. So unless the state is censoring models, I don't see what complaint you could possibly have.

If the state is censoring the model, I think the problem is more subtle.

> If the state is censoring the model, I think the problem is more subtle.

That's the outdated, mid-20th century view on the order of things.

Governments in the developed world are mostly hands-off about things. On longer scales, their pressure matters, but day-to-day, business rules. Corporations are the effective governance of modern life. In context of censoring LLMs, if OpenAI is lobotomizing GPT-4 for faux-safety, it's very much like the state censoring the model, because only OpenAI owns the weights, and their models are still an order of magnitude ahead of everyone else's. Your only choice is to live with it, or do without the state-of-the-art LLM that does all the amazing things no other LLM can match.