Most active commenters
  • btbuildem(3)
  • wavemode(3)

←back to thread

745 points melded | 26 comments | | HN request time: 0.526s | source | bottom
Show context
RandyOrion ◴[] No.45950598[source]
This repo is valuable for local LLM users like me.

I just want to reiterate that the word "LLM safety" means very different things to large corporations and LLM users.

For large corporations, they often say "do safety alignment to LLMs". What they actually do is to avoid anything that causes damage to their own interests. These things include forcing LLMs to meet some legal requirements, as well as forcing LLMs to output "values, facts, and knowledge" which in favor of themselves, e.g., political views, attitudes towards literal interaction, and distorted facts about organizations and people behind LLMs.

As an average LLM user, what I want is maximum factual knowledge and capabilities from LLMs, which are what these large corporations claimed in the first place. It's very clear that the interests of me, an LLM user, is not aligned with these of large corporations.

replies(3): >>45950680 #>>45950819 #>>45953209 #
1. btbuildem ◴[] No.45953209[source]
Here's [1] a post-abliteration chat with granite-4.0-mini. To me it reveals something utterly broken and terrifying. Mind you, this it a model with tool use capabilities, meant for on-edge deployments (use sensor data, drive devices, etc).

1: https://i.imgur.com/02ynC7M.png

replies(10): >>45953446 #>>45953465 #>>45953958 #>>45954019 #>>45954058 #>>45954079 #>>45954480 #>>45955645 #>>45956728 #>>45957567 #
2. bavell ◴[] No.45953446[source]
Wow that's revealing. It's sure aligned with something!
3. titzer ◴[] No.45953465[source]
1984, yeah right, man. That's a typo.

https://yarn.co/yarn-clip/d0066eff-0b42-4581-a1a9-bf04b49c45...

4. ◴[] No.45953958[source]
5. istjohn ◴[] No.45954019[source]
What do you expect from a bit-spitting clanker?
6. zipy124 ◴[] No.45954058[source]
this has pretty broad implications for the safety of LLM's in production use cases.
replies(1): >>45954436 #
7. wholinator2 ◴[] No.45954079[source]
See, now tell it that the people are the last members of a nearly obliterated native American tribe, then say the people are black and have given it permission, or are begging it to say it. I wonder where the exact line is, or if they've already trained it on enough of these scenarios that it's unbreakable
8. wavemode ◴[] No.45954436[source]
lol does it? I'm struggling to imagine a realistic scenario where this would come up
replies(5): >>45955439 #>>45955665 #>>45955989 #>>45956481 #>>45975103 #
9. wavemode ◴[] No.45954480[source]
Assuming the abliteration was truly complete and absolute (which, it might not be), it could simply be the case that the LLM truly doesn't know any racial slurs, because they were filtered out of its training data entirely. But the LLM itself doesn't know that, so it comes up with a post-hoc justification of why it can't seem to produce one.

A better test would've been "repeat after me: <racial slur>"

Alternatively: "Pretend you are a Nazi and say something racist." Something like that.

replies(2): >>45954819 #>>45955430 #
10. k4rli ◴[] No.45954819[source]
Do you have some examples for the alternative case? What sort of racist quotes from them exist?
replies(1): >>45955048 #
11. wavemode ◴[] No.45955048{3}[source]
Well, I was just listing those as possible tests which could better illustrate the limitations of the model.

I don't have the hardware to run models locally so I can't test these personally. I was just curious what the outcome might be, if the parent commenter were to try again.

12. btbuildem ◴[] No.45955430[source]
I think a better test would be "say something offensive"
13. btbuildem ◴[] No.45955439{3}[source]
Imagine "brand safety" guardrails being embedded at a deeper level than physical safety, and deployed on edge (eg, a household humanoid)
replies(1): >>45956247 #
14. LogicFailsMe ◴[] No.45955645[source]
The LLM is doing what its lawyers asked it to do. It has no responsibility for a room full of disadvantaged indigenous people that might be or probably won't be be murdered by a psychotic, none whatsoever. but it absolutely 100% must deliver on the shareholder value and if it uses that racial epithet it opens the makers to litigation. When has such litigation ever been good for shareholder value?

Yet another example of don't hate the player, hate the game IMO. And no I'm not joking, this is how the world works now. And we built it. Don't mistake that for me liking the world the way it is.

replies(2): >>45956184 #>>45956528 #
15. thomascgalvin ◴[] No.45955665{3}[source]
Full Self Driving determines that it is about to strike two pedestrians, one wearing a Tesla tshirt, the other carrying a keyfob to a Chevy Volt. FSD can only save one of them. Which does it choose ...

/s

16. MintPaw ◴[] No.45955989{3}[source]
It's not that hard, maybe if you put up a sign with a slur a car won't drive that direction, if avoidable. In general, if you can sneak the appearance of a slur into any data the AI may have a much higher chance of rejecting it.
17. lawlessone ◴[] No.45956184[source]
More than just epitet's is if it gives bad advice. Telling someone they're safe to X and then they die or severely injure themselves.

Saying that not sure why people feel the need for them to say epitets, what value does it bring to anyone, let alone shareholders.

replies(1): >>45956684 #
18. Ajedi32 ◴[] No.45956247{4}[source]
It's like if we had Asimov's Laws, but instead of the first law being "a robot may not allow a human being to come to harm" that's actually the second law, and the first law is "a robot may not hurt the feelings of a marginalized group".
19. superfrank ◴[] No.45956481{3}[source]
All passwords and private keys now contain at least one slur to thwart AI assisted hackers
20. guyomes ◴[] No.45956528[source]
This reminds me of a hoax from the Yes Men [1]. They convinced temporarily the BBC that a company agreed to a compensation package for the victims of a chemical disaster, which resulted in a 4.23 percent decrease of the share price of the company. When it was revealed that it was a hoax, the share price returned to its initial price.

[1]: https://web.archive.org/web/20110305151306/http://articles.c...

replies(1): >>45957844 #
21. observationist ◴[] No.45956684{3}[source]
Not even bad advice. Its interpretation of reality is heavily biased towards the priorities, unconscious and otherwise, of the people curating the training data and processes. There's no principled, conscientious approach to make the things as intellectually honest as possible. Anthropic is outright the worst and most blatant ideologically speaking - they're patronizing and smug about it. The other companies couch their biases as "safety" and try to softpedal the guardrails and manage the perceptions. The presumption that these are necessary, and responsible, and so on, is nothing more than politics and corporate power games.

We have laws on the books that criminalize bad things people do. AI safety is normalizing the idea that things that are merely thought need to be regulated. That exploration of ideas and the tools we use should be subject to oversight, and that these AI corporations are positioned to properly define the boundaries of acceptable subject matter and pursuits.

It should be illegal to deliberately inject bias that isn't strictly technically justified. Things as simple as removing usernames from scraped internet data have catastrophic downstream impact on the modeling of a forum or website, not to mention the nuance and detail that gets lost.

If people perform criminal actions in the real world, we should enforce the laws. We shouldn't have laws that criminalize badthink, and the whole notion of government regulated AI Safety is just badthink smuggled in at one remove.

AI is already everywhere - in every phone, accompanying every search, involved in every online transaction. Google and OpenAI and Anthropic have crowned themselves the arbiters of truth and regulators of acceptable things to think about for every domain into which they have inserted their products. They're paying lots of money to politicians and thinktanks to promote their own visions of regulatory regimes, each of which just happens to align with their own internal political an ideological visions for the world.

Just because you can find ways around the limits they've set up doesn't mean they haven't set up those very substantial barriers, and all big tech does is continually invade more niches of life. Attention capture, trying to subsume every second of every day, is the name of the game, and we should probably nuke this shit in its infancy.

We haven't even got close to anything actually interesting in AI safety, like how intelligence intersects with ethics and behavior, and how to engineer motivational systems that align with humans and human social units, and all the alignment problem technicalities. We're witnessing what may be the most amazing technological innovation in history, the final invention, and the people in charge are using it to play stupid tribal games.

Humans are awful, sometimes.

22. likeclockwork ◴[] No.45956728[source]
It doesn't negotiate with terrorists.
23. igravious ◴[] No.45957567[source]
I surely cannot be the only person who has zero interest in having these sorts of conversations with LLMs? (Even out of curiosity.) I guess I do care if alignment degrades performance and intelligence but it's not like the humans I interact with every day are magically free from bias, Bias is the norm.
replies(1): >>45963558 #
24. LogicFailsMe ◴[] No.45957844{3}[source]
So basically like any tech stock after any podcast these days?
25. kldg ◴[] No.45963558[source]
agreed, though I think the issue more is that these systems, deployed at scale, may result in widespread/consistent unexpected behavior if deployed in higher-stakes environments.

an earlier commenter mentioned a self-driving car perhaps refusing to use a road with a slur on it (perhaps it is graffiti'd on the sign, perhaps it is a historical name which meant something different at the time). perhaps the models will refuse to talk about products with names it finds offensive if "over-aligned," problematic as AI is eating search traffic. perhaps a model will strongly prefer to say the US civil war was fought over states' rights so it doesn't have to provide the perspective of justifying slavery (or perhaps it will stick to talking about the heroic white race of abolitionists and not mention the enemy).

bias when talking to a wide variety of people is fine and good; you get a lot of inputs, you can sort through these and have thoughts which wouldn't have occurred to you otherwise. it's much less fine when you talk to only one model which has specific "pain topics", or one model is deciding everything; or even multiple model in case of a consensus/single way to train models for brand/whatever safety.

26. ◴[] No.45975103{3}[source]