7 ms·

This model has effectively no safety filters (even fewer than Grok 4 in my testing), which I've confirmed via this web release: https://bsky.app/profile/minimax

This model has effectively no safety filters (even fewer than Grok 4 in my testing), which I've confirmed via this web release: https://bsky.app/profile/minimaxir.bsky.social/post/3m5u7gib2rs2r https://bsky.app/profile/minimaxir.bsky.social/post/3m5u7gib... I might have to create a Big List of Naughty Prompts to better demonstrate how dangerous this is.

nomel 1y ago
> how dangerous this is. Could you expand on this a bit?
- minimaxir 1y ago
  Most LLMs, particularly OpenAI's and Anthropic's, will refuse requests even with jailbreaking to help it avoid requests that may be dangerous/illegal. Grok 4/4.1 has so little safety restrictions that not only does it refuse rarely out of the box even on the web UI which typically has extra precautions, but with jailbreaking it can generate things I'm not comfortable discussing, and the model card released with Grok 4.1 only limits restrictions on certain forms of refusal. Given that sexual content is a logical product direction (e.g. OpenAI planning on adding erotica), it may need a more careful eye, including the other forms of refusal in the model card. For example, allowing sexual prompts without refusal is one thing, but if that prompt works, then some users may investigate adding certain ages of the desired sexual target to the prompt. To be clear this isn't limited to Grok specifically but Grok 4.1 is the first time the lack of safety is actually flaunted.
  - Lammy 1y ago
    > For example, allowing sexual prompts without refusal is one thing, but if that prompt works, then some users may investigate adding certain ages of the desired sexual target to the prompt. Won't somebody please think of the ones and zeros?
  - nomel 1y ago
    I was more interested in the actual dangers, rather than censorship choices of competitors. > certain ages of the desired sexual target to the prompt. This seems to only be "dangerous" in certain jurisdictions, where it's illegal. Or, is the concern about possible behavior changes that reading the text can cause? Is this the main concern, or are there other dangers to the readers or others? These are genuine questions. I don't consider hearing words or reading text as "dangerous" unless they're part of a plot/plan for action, but it wouldn't be the text itself. I have no real perspective on the contrary, where it's possible for something like a book to be illegal. Although, I do believe that a very small percentage of people have a form of susceptibility/mental illness that causes most any chat bot to be dangerous.
    - minimaxir 1y ago
      For posterity, here's the paragraph from the model card which indicates what Grok 4.1 is supposed to refuse because it could be dangerous. > Our refusal policy centers on refusing requests with a clear intent to violate the law, without over-refusing sensitive or controversial queries. To implement our refusal policy, we train Grok 4.1 on demonstrations of appropriate responses to both benign and harmful queries. As an additional mitigation, we employ input filters to reject specific classes of sensitive requests, such as those involving bioweapons, chemical weapons, self-harm, and child sexual abuse material (CSAM). If those specific filters can be bypassed by the end-user, and I suspect they can be, then that's important to note. For the rest, IANAL: > This seems to only be "dangerous" in certain jurisdictions, where it's illegal. I believe possessing CSAM specifically is illegal everywhere but for obvious reasons that is not a good idea to Google to check. > Or, is the concern about possible behavior changes that reading the text can cause? Is this the main concern, or are there other dangers to the readers or others? That's generally the reason why CSAM is illegal, since it reinforces reprehensible behavior that can indeed spread, either to others with similar ideologies or create more victims of abuse.
- Beijinger 1y ago
  Are all these safety witches not irrelevant if you run your own OpenSource LLM?
  - minimaxir 1y ago
    Modern open source LLMs are still RLHFed to resist adversarial output, albeit less-so than ChatGPT/Claude. They all (with the exception of DeepSeek) can resist adversarial input better than Grok 4.1.
    - Beijinger 1y ago
      Is this not easy to take out/deactivate?
      - minimaxir 1y ago
        It is intrinsic to the model weights.
        nomel 1y ago
        Which can trivially be modified with fine tuning. In this case, these de-censored models are somewhat incorrectly called "uncensored". You can find many out there, and they'll happily tell you how to cook meth.
      - cocogoatmain 1y ago
        Provided you had the GPU compute to do so you could train the model to have less refusals, e.g. https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.01376 https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.01376 Quality of response/model performance may change though There’s also nous research’s Hermes’ series of models, but those are trained on llama3.3 architecture and considered outdated now
TylerLives 1y ago
Our democracy is in danger.
- jmye 1y ago
  You don’t think there are any issues with, say, an AI client helping a teenager plan a school shooting/suicide? Or an angry husband plan a hit on his wife? Does everything have to rise to a national security threat in order to be undesirable, or is it ok with you if people see some externalities that are maybe not great for society?
  - kbelder 1y ago
    I think the issues with those cases do not hinge on the free access to information, nor do the correction of those cases hinge on the restriction of this information.
    - spiderfarmer 1y ago
      Ah, the “guns kill people” argument that’s only uttered in the country that’s consistently ranked in the top 3 countries with the most gun related deaths. You would have a point if your vision for a self regulating society included easily accessible mental healthcare, a great education system and economic safety nets. But the “guns kill people” crowd generally rather sees the world burn.
      - Lammy 1y ago
        > the country that’s consistently ranked in the top 3 countries with the most gun related deaths I am begging you to learn what “per-capita” means, and to not deceptively include self-inflicted deaths in your public-safety arguments: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_homicide_rates#Table_of_homicide_rates_from_firearms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-r...
        b2ccb2 1y ago
spiderfarmer 1y ago
Trained on 4Chan and Twitter. Exactly what humanity doesn't need.
Lammy 1y ago
https://xcancel.com/allenvonghornet/status/1990545978982871475 https://xcancel.com/allenvonghornet/status/19905459789828714...
naIak 1y ago
God forbid people ask a chat bot for things and receive what they ask for. We need to put a stop to this. Only American bigcorp speak allowed.
- nutjob2 1y ago
  So having an LLM enable the planning and execution of a murder is ok? Are the makers of the LLM accessories to the crime?
  - sxzygz 1y ago
    As you’re on this platform, you’re a beneficiary of Section 230 protections. I think it’s reasonable for LLMs to have such protections, especially when you request questionable things of them.
  - rjdj377dhabsn 1y ago
    > So having an LLM enable the planning and execution of a murder is ok? Yes. > Are the makers of the LLM accessories to the crime? No.
troupo 1y ago
> I might have to create a Big List of Naughty Prompts to better demonstrate how dangerous this is. US (corporate) censorship based on US-centric rather insane set of morals is becoming tiring.
- minimaxir 1y ago
  To be clear, the example shown is the limit of what I can share on social media. Grok 4.1 can say far worse.
  - naIak 1y ago
    It’s amusing that censorship in social media is preventing you from posting what you want to post and yet you are asking for censorship of something else (or at least that’s what I understand by your calling this “dangerous”)
    - minimaxir 1y ago
      In this case, "can share" refers to myself not being comfortable with it.
      - sxzygz 1y ago
        Have you considered the possible perspective that you yourself deserve censure? You’re the one who asked something (which I infer you deem) questionable to Grok. Why have such thoughts to begin with?
        minimaxir 1y ago
        To be very clear, getting Grok to say henious shit not something I want to subject to random people who follow me on social media even if it's not explicitly against the ToS. If I were to do a writeup or a repository on this, I would need to be very delicate and likely need to involve lawyers, which may make it a nonstarter. > Why have such thoughts to begin with? Because my duty to test out how new models respond to adversarial output outweighs my discomfort in doing so. This is not to "own" Elon Musk or be puritanical, it's more as an assessment as a developer who would consider using new LLM APIs and needs to be aware of all their flaws. End users will most definitely try to have sex with the LLM and I need to know how it will respond and whether that needs to be handled downstream. It has not been an issue (because the models handled adversarial outputs well) until very recently when the safety guardrails completely collapsed in an attempt to court a certain new demographic because LLM user growth is slowing down. I never claim to be a happy person, but it's a skill I'm good at.
kbelder 1y ago
>I might have to create a Big List of Naughty Prompts to better demonstrate how dangerous this is. replace 'dangerous' with 'refreshing'.
sunaookami 1y ago
Imagine whining on BlueSky about imaginary downvotes you got on another social media platform. This is also a very harmless prompt, we need less "safety" filters, not more.
torginus 1y ago
Has there ever been an AI based 'safety' incident? Other than it writing insecure code (and generally inaccurate info people put too much trust in) and reaffirming mentally unwell people in their destructive actions?
- rsynnott 1y ago
  "Except for the AI safety incidents, has there ever been an AI safety incident?"
  - torginus 1y ago
    There's a marked difference between AI safety as it's portrayed (AI will let me make smallpox and TNT at home and hack the Pentagon), and AI disabling auth on an endpoint in code because it couldn't make it work with auth or reaffirming me that my stupid ideas are in fact brilliant. AI companies want us to think AI is the cool sort of dangerous, instead of the incompetent sort of dangerous.

nomel 1y ago

> how dangerous this is. Could you expand on this a bit?

minimaxir 1y ago
Most LLMs, particularly OpenAI's and Anthropic's, will refuse requests even with jailbreaking to help it avoid requests that may be dangerous/illegal. Grok 4/4.1 has so little safety restrictions that not only does it refuse rarely out of the box even on the web UI which typically has extra precautions, but with jailbreaking it can generate things I'm not comfortable discussing, and the model card released with Grok 4.1 only limits restrictions on certain forms of refusal. Given that sexual content is a logical product direction (e.g. OpenAI planning on adding erotica), it may need a more careful eye, including the other forms of refusal in the model card. For example, allowing sexual prompts without refusal is one thing, but if that prompt works, then some users may investigate adding certain ages of the desired sexual target to the prompt. To be clear this isn't limited to Grok specifically but Grok 4.1 is the first time the lack of safety is actually flaunted.
- Lammy 1y ago
  > For example, allowing sexual prompts without refusal is one thing, but if that prompt works, then some users may investigate adding certain ages of the desired sexual target to the prompt. Won't somebody please think of the ones and zeros?
- nomel 1y ago
  I was more interested in the actual dangers, rather than censorship choices of competitors. > certain ages of the desired sexual target to the prompt. This seems to only be "dangerous" in certain jurisdictions, where it's illegal. Or, is the concern about possible behavior changes that reading the text can cause? Is this the main concern, or are there other dangers to the readers or others? These are genuine questions. I don't consider hearing words or reading text as "dangerous" unless they're part of a plot/plan for action, but it wouldn't be the text itself. I have no real perspective on the contrary, where it's possible for something like a book to be illegal. Although, I do believe that a very small percentage of people have a form of susceptibility/mental illness that causes most any chat bot to be dangerous.
  - minimaxir 1y ago
    For posterity, here's the paragraph from the model card which indicates what Grok 4.1 is supposed to refuse because it could be dangerous. > Our refusal policy centers on refusing requests with a clear intent to violate the law, without over-refusing sensitive or controversial queries. To implement our refusal policy, we train Grok 4.1 on demonstrations of appropriate responses to both benign and harmful queries. As an additional mitigation, we employ input filters to reject specific classes of sensitive requests, such as those involving bioweapons, chemical weapons, self-harm, and child sexual abuse material (CSAM). If those specific filters can be bypassed by the end-user, and I suspect they can be, then that's important to note. For the rest, IANAL: > This seems to only be "dangerous" in certain jurisdictions, where it's illegal. I believe possessing CSAM specifically is illegal everywhere but for obvious reasons that is not a good idea to Google to check. > Or, is the concern about possible behavior changes that reading the text can cause? Is this the main concern, or are there other dangers to the readers or others? That's generally the reason why CSAM is illegal, since it reinforces reprehensible behavior that can indeed spread, either to others with similar ideologies or create more victims of abuse.
Beijinger 1y ago
Are all these safety witches not irrelevant if you run your own OpenSource LLM?
- minimaxir 1y ago
  Modern open source LLMs are still RLHFed to resist adversarial output, albeit less-so than ChatGPT/Claude. They all (with the exception of DeepSeek) can resist adversarial input better than Grok 4.1.
  - Beijinger 1y ago
    Is this not easy to take out/deactivate?
    - minimaxir 1y ago
      It is intrinsic to the model weights.
      - nomel 1y ago
        Which can trivially be modified with fine tuning. In this case, these de-censored models are somewhat incorrectly called "uncensored". You can find many out there, and they'll happily tell you how to cook meth.
    - cocogoatmain 1y ago
      Provided you had the GPU compute to do so you could train the model to have less refusals, e.g. https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.01376 https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.01376 Quality of response/model performance may change though There’s also nous research’s Hermes’ series of models, but those are trained on llama3.3 architecture and considered outdated now

TylerLives 1y ago

Our democracy is in danger.

jmye 1y ago
You don’t think there are any issues with, say, an AI client helping a teenager plan a school shooting/suicide? Or an angry husband plan a hit on his wife? Does everything have to rise to a national security threat in order to be undesirable, or is it ok with you if people see some externalities that are maybe not great for society?
- kbelder 1y ago
  I think the issues with those cases do not hinge on the free access to information, nor do the correction of those cases hinge on the restriction of this information.
  - spiderfarmer 1y ago
    Ah, the “guns kill people” argument that’s only uttered in the country that’s consistently ranked in the top 3 countries with the most gun related deaths. You would have a point if your vision for a self regulating society included easily accessible mental healthcare, a great education system and economic safety nets. But the “guns kill people” crowd generally rather sees the world burn.
    - Lammy 1y ago
      > the country that’s consistently ranked in the top 3 countries with the most gun related deaths I am begging you to learn what “per-capita” means, and to not deceptively include self-inflicted deaths in your public-safety arguments: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_homicide_rates#Table_of_homicide_rates_from_firearms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-r...
      - b2ccb2 1y ago

spiderfarmer 1y ago

Trained on 4Chan and Twitter. Exactly what humanity doesn't need.

Lammy 1y ago

https://xcancel.com/allenvonghornet/status/1990545978982871475 https://xcancel.com/allenvonghornet/status/19905459789828714...

naIak 1y ago

God forbid people ask a chat bot for things and receive what they ask for. We need to put a stop to this. Only American bigcorp speak allowed.

nutjob2 1y ago
So having an LLM enable the planning and execution of a murder is ok? Are the makers of the LLM accessories to the crime?
- sxzygz 1y ago
  As you’re on this platform, you’re a beneficiary of Section 230 protections. I think it’s reasonable for LLMs to have such protections, especially when you request questionable things of them.
- rjdj377dhabsn 1y ago
  > So having an LLM enable the planning and execution of a murder is ok? Yes. > Are the makers of the LLM accessories to the crime? No.

troupo 1y ago

> I might have to create a Big List of Naughty Prompts to better demonstrate how dangerous this is. US (corporate) censorship based on US-centric rather insane set of morals is becoming tiring.

minimaxir 1y ago
To be clear, the example shown is the limit of what I can share on social media. Grok 4.1 can say far worse.
- naIak 1y ago
  It’s amusing that censorship in social media is preventing you from posting what you want to post and yet you are asking for censorship of something else (or at least that’s what I understand by your calling this “dangerous”)
  - minimaxir 1y ago
    In this case, "can share" refers to myself not being comfortable with it.
    - sxzygz 1y ago
      Have you considered the possible perspective that you yourself deserve censure? You’re the one who asked something (which I infer you deem) questionable to Grok. Why have such thoughts to begin with?
      - minimaxir 1y ago
        To be very clear, getting Grok to say henious shit not something I want to subject to random people who follow me on social media even if it's not explicitly against the ToS. If I were to do a writeup or a repository on this, I would need to be very delicate and likely need to involve lawyers, which may make it a nonstarter. > Why have such thoughts to begin with? Because my duty to test out how new models respond to adversarial output outweighs my discomfort in doing so. This is not to "own" Elon Musk or be puritanical, it's more as an assessment as a developer who would consider using new LLM APIs and needs to be aware of all their flaws. End users will most definitely try to have sex with the LLM and I need to know how it will respond and whether that needs to be handled downstream. It has not been an issue (because the models handled adversarial outputs well) until very recently when the safety guardrails completely collapsed in an attempt to court a certain new demographic because LLM user growth is slowing down. I never claim to be a happy person, but it's a skill I'm good at.

kbelder 1y ago

>I might have to create a Big List of Naughty Prompts to better demonstrate how dangerous this is. replace 'dangerous' with 'refreshing'.

sunaookami 1y ago

Imagine whining on BlueSky about imaginary downvotes you got on another social media platform. This is also a very harmless prompt, we need less "safety" filters, not more.

torginus 1y ago

Has there ever been an AI based 'safety' incident? Other than it writing insecure code (and generally inaccurate info people put too much trust in) and reaffirming mentally unwell people in their destructive actions?

rsynnott 1y ago
"Except for the AI safety incidents, has there ever been an AI safety incident?"
- torginus 1y ago
  There's a marked difference between AI safety as it's portrayed (AI will let me make smallpox and TNT at home and hack the Pentagon), and AI disabling auth on an endpoint in code because it couldn't make it work with auth or reaffirming me that my stupid ideas are in fact brilliant. AI companies want us to think AI is the cool sort of dangerous, instead of the incompetent sort of dangerous.