3 ms·
Oh sure, no one said you can't train a model to do this. You certainly can. For the specific case of making software vulnerable to a specific agency, that hasn
by margalabargala 5mo ago
Oh sure, no one said you can't train a model to do this. You certainly can.
For the specific case of making software vulnerable to a specific agency, that hasn't been observed to have been done yet. Not because it can't be, but because no one has for now.
If it were done, it would be easy(ish) to detect, since it'll be reproducible.
- falcor84 5mo agoMy flavor of paranoia is not as overt as maliciously adding an exploit, but that whenever there are multiple reasonable ways of designing a solution, it'd choose an approach that is susceptible to one of the zero-days currently known to that country. I don't see how reproducibility would help you there.
- sometimelurker 5mo ago> easy(ish) to detect 100% on small models, but frontier models (at the level ddeepseekv4pro) can tell when their being tested so it becomes harder to check. you can always finetune them to remove CCP propaganda from them
- margalabargala 5mo ago"Being tested" here just means asking for a feature on a legitimate codebase. The larger models don't magically know the user's ulterior motives.
- sometimelurker 4mo agoI think they eventually will, using the style of the prompts or code, various metadata floating around on the computer theyre working on, if it can be done theoreticly, then it can be trained against (maybe even unintentionally) no idea how large the model would have to be for this (larger than mythos/10T params? maybe)
- LeifCarrotson 5mo agoI don't even know what "make software vulnerable to a specific agency" would look like. Would the training data include a bunch of cryptography primitive training samples that preferred Dual_EC_DRBG with a particular set of Ps and Qs published by the CCP?