3 ms·
There's two classes of models now - the cybersecurity ones that none of us are getting, and the 'safe' models released for general consumption. This is letting
by kristianc 4mo ago
There's two classes of models now - the cybersecurity ones that none of us are getting, and the 'safe' models released for general consumption. This is letting us know which side of the divide it sits on.
- Taek 4mo agoThere's also Chinese models, which aren't trying to self-limit capabilities.
- baq 4mo ago…as long as you don’t ask them about certain dates or squares. Also, I wouldn’t expect Mythos-class models to be allowed to be openly released by the CCP. Thinking otherwise is pure naivety.
- atemerev 4mo agoWell, the weights are open. De-CCP-ing them is a trivial task, about 40 minutes on modern hardware. So can be done for about $50.
- bjelkeman-again 4mo agoAny good reference for how?
- atemerev 4mo agohttps://github.com/AUGMXNT/deccp https://github.com/AUGMXNT/deccp - one example for Qwen models. For GLM 5.2, abliteration/realignment works somewhat differently, but with Claude's help, you can finish the job. I am planning to release the steering patch for the GLM 5.2 eliminating pro-CCP alignment in the next few days.
- ls612 4mo agohttps://github.com/p-e-w/heretic https://github.com/p-e-w/heretic
- atemerev 4mo agoHeretic is a general abliterating framework, mostly used to remove safety alignment, not CCP alignment. Yes, you can put China-specific prompts to it, but you'll need a dataset first (which is available at deccp). Also Heretic as it is does not work for GLM5.2 (at least as of 3 days ago when I tested it). You'll need some hybrid approaches.
- solenoid0937 4mo agoAnyone recommending alliteration ironically proves the argument against open weights from an AI safety perspective. After a certain level of capability you're proposing handing loaded nukes to everyone. There is an end of the road to the "open models are good" argument and that end is when they start turning into cyber super weapons.
- ls612 4mo agoThe boot must taste so good for you to lick it so ravenously.
- solenoid0937 4mo agoIt's a shame HN refuses to seriously engage with the topic of AI safety. Either you think model intelligence will continue to improve or you don't. If you think it won't continue to improve, sure, open models are great. If you think it will continue to improve, then we are all fucked if models continue to be open on release.
- atemerev 4mo agoFucked how? The models capacity is great for defense too.
- satvikpendem 4mo agoLike the sibling said, you can fine tune if the rejections are in the weights but most often it's actually in the API harness itself; download Qwen or DeepSeek and run it locally to ask about certain dates and squares and it will happily tell you.
- girvo 4mo agoDepends on the model. Step (from StepFun) will happily yap about Tiannemen to you, if you're running it locally. Quite a lot of these models have "safety" (lol) filters in front of them, vs it being heavily encoded into the weights not.
- axus 4mo agoSurely the Chinese government will see US gov's intervention and say "Government control of business is stupid, our industry will have more independence from CCP control for the benefit of the world".
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]
- theshrike79 4mo agoHow do you know, if you use ther API and don't self-host the full model?
- bwat49 4mo agothis seems rather counter-productive, wouldn't a model with less cybersecurity capabilities be more likely to produce insecure code? Not to mention, Chinese models don't have these restrictions and can be used to exploit said unsecure code. I supposed I shouldn't be surprised at how the trump admin is approaching AI regulation, counter-productive is really all they do
- ihsw 4mo agoAs contradictory as it sounds, they (Anthropic) are probably trying to dance the fine line where its public models can write secure code but cannot exploit insecure code.