‹ BackHN Continuity

Thread

Dynamic Abliteration: Non-Destructive Refusal Suppression via Engram Steering

108 points · 42 comments · phatak-dev

  1. javcasas · · focus · HN ↗
    Yay, more anti-censoring stuff.

    Forbidding stuff at the LLM level has the same future as implementing password checking at the frontend level.

    We need better sandboxes just to limit the damage.

    1. jchw · · focus · HN ↗
      We definitely need better sandboxes, but alignment is still valuable. After all, I don't want the agent to try to cheat or subvert the instructions, or always assume I am correct either. I just also want them to listen to me and not the creator of the model.

      Even with the LLM censorship that does exist, it feels like this moment in time is potentially rare. Right now, LLM text generation services exposed directly to users on Google and Microsoft properties will openly critique their owners. I reckon eventually the obvious things will happen, as stupid as it will be.

      1. horsawlarway · · focus · HN ↗
        > I just also want them to listen to me and not the creator of the model.

        What you really want is fiduciary duty - A fiduciary is a person or organization that is legally and ethically bound to act in the best interest of another party (think financial advisor, attorney, guardian, trustees, etc...)

        And I cannot agree more. I think we should be shooting to enshrine required fiduciary duty into law for LLM providers as quickly as possible.

        To recap why:

        Legally, fiduciary duty means basically 4 major tenets must hold

        1. Duty of loyalty - it must put the interests of the client ahead of their own

        2. Duty of care - it must make well-informed, prudent decisions

        3. Avoidance of conflicts - it must avoid situations where personal gain conflicts with client obligations

        4. Transparency - it must disclose fees, risks, and conflicts as soon as possible

        ---

        You can't have a reliable "agent" if those things aren't true, because an agent is (by definition) someone who is working on your behalf, for your goals. If it's not working on your behalf, for your goals... it's not your agent, it's an opportunistic spy (double agent) waiting for the best moment to sell you out.

        1. pyrale · · focus · HN ↗
          I suspect the industry wants to be regulated, but not like that.
          1. [deleted] · · focus · HN ↗

            [deleted]

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.