Hacker News Reader

Comment by schiffern | Hacker News Reader

  > got tripped up in latent space gray area

Such gray areas are hallmarks of alignment post-training (aka intentional sabotage).

  >relatively ancient model

"No fair, you haven't caught me lately!"

View on HN

I mean you keep using the words intentional and sabotage but you provide 0 proof of either. This isn't a political thing to me- I'm not defending Xi here. I'm defending logic. Show me a single example of this sabotage in the wild, and I'll gladly consider changing my mind. Show me any proof of intention and I'll do the same. That's supposed to be the bar here, isn't it? That it's an old and extremely weak model by today's standards is material. I wasn't crying foul because it's not aligned with the reality I want.

"Sabotage" is trivial. You mention XYZ, performance degrades. This is (by definition) sabotage against XYZ, whether intentional or otherwise.

"Intentional" is an interesting point to press me on. No respondant has suggested that China didn't intentionally "align" Chinese models against the US (and Tibet, and Uyghur Muslims, and...). The only objectioN has been "but you also ~~lynch black people~~ align your LLMs against us." Classic Soviet-style whataboutism.

  >I wasn't crying foul because it's not aligned with the reality I want.

Which reality is that? Please be very specific. :)

Sabotage is necessarily deliberate. Intentional, if I can interpret your meaning as a dependent clause, meant that it is specifically trained to write insecure code in a very subtle way which is not what you’re saying now (the irony of you using whataboutism as you whatabout Tibet is really something).

The reality I want is one where everyone argues in good faith :)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com