←back to thread

I extracted the safety filters from Apple Intelligence models

(github.com)
536 points BlueFalconHD | 5 comments | 06 Jul 25 19:50 UTC | HN request time: 0.758s | source

I managed to reverse engineer the encryption (refered to as “Obfuscation” in the framework) responsible for managing the safety filters of Apple Intelligence models. I have extracted them into a repository. I encourage you to take a look around.
Show context
trebligdivad ◴[06 Jul 25 20:56 UTC] No.44483981[source]▶
Some of the combinations are a bit weird, This one has lots of stuff avoiding death....together with a set ensuring all the Apple brands have the correct capitalisation. Priorities hey!

https://github.com/BlueFalconHD/apple_generative_model_safet...

replies(11): >>44483999 #>>44484073 #>>44484095 #>>44484410 #>>44484636 #>>44486072 #>>44487916 #>>44488185 #>>44488279 #>>44488362 #>>44488856 #
grues-dinner ◴[06 Jul 25 21:09 UTC] No.44484073[source]▶
Interesting that it didn't seem to include "unalive".

Which as a phenomenon is so very telling that no one actually cares what people are really saying. Everyone, including the platforms knows what that means. It's all performative.

replies(11): >>44484164 #>>44484360 #>>44484635 #>>44484665 #>>44485033 #>>44485034 #>>44486246 #>>44487244 #>>44488055 #>>44488114 #>>44500918 #
qingcharles ◴[06 Jul 25 21:22 UTC] No.44484164[source]▶
It's totally performative. There's no way to stay ahead of the new language that people create.

At what point do the new words become the actual words? Are there many instances of people using unalive IRL?

replies(17): >>44484171 #>>44484218 #>>44484614 #>>44484958 #>>44484970 #>>44484989 #>>44485202 #>>44485277 #>>44485309 #>>44486128 #>>44486394 #>>44487625 #>>44487839 #>>44487936 #>>44488097 #>>44488704 #>>44493436 #
fouronnes3 ◴[06 Jul 25 21:29 UTC] No.44484218[source]▶
This question is sort of the same as asking why the universal translator wasn't able to translate the metaphor language of the Star Trek episode Darmok. Surely if the metaphor has become the first order meaning then there's no litteral meaning anymore.
replies(2): >>44484280 #>>44485002 #
qingcharles ◴[06 Jul 25 21:34 UTC] No.44484280[source]▶
I guess, so far, the people inventing the words have left the meaning clear with things like "un-alive" which is readable even to someone coming across it for the first time.

Your point stands when we start replacing the banned words with things like "suicide" for "donkeyrhubarb" and then the walls really will fall.

replies(3): >>44484518 #>>44484885 #>>44485791 #
1. userbinator ◴[06 Jul 25 22:06 UTC] No.44484518[source]▶
This form of obfuscation has actually already occurred over a century ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cockney_rhyming_slang
replies(3): >>44485043 #>>44487942 #>>44496850 #
2. t-3 ◴[06 Jul 25 23:19 UTC] No.44485043[source]▶
Rhyming slang rhymes tho. The recipient can understand what's meant by de-obfuscating in-context. Random strings substituted for $proscribed_word don't work in the same way.
replies(1): >>44485127 #
3. waterproof ◴[06 Jul 25 23:31 UTC] No.44485127[source]▶
In Cockney rhyming slang, the rhyming word (which would be easy to reverse engineer) is omitted. So if "stairs" is rhyme-paired with "apples and pears" and then people just use the word "apples" in place of "stairs". "Pears" is omitted in common use so you can't just reverse the rhyme.

The example photo on Wikipedia includes the rhyming words but that's not how it would be used IRL.

4. zimpenfish ◴[07 Jul 25 08:22 UTC] No.44487942[source]▶
See also Polari[0] and the Grass Mud Horse Lexicon[1]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polari

[1] https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=6538 (CDT links broken, use [2])

[2] https://chinadigitaltimes.net/space/Grass-Mud_Horse_Lexicon_...

5. qingcharles ◴[08 Jul 25 03:43 UTC] No.44496850[source]▶
Shaka!