Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

"Uncensored" open LLMs are measurably more optimistic than their base models

arxiv.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 30 posts

Re: "Uncensored" open LLMs are measurably more optimistic than their base models

#11

Post by kbelder »

oleczek wrote: post #2

Author here. Quick version: “abliteration” (basically removing the direction in the model that causes it to refuse) is the go-to method people use to make open models uncensored. Most people treat it like a clean surgical cut - it just kills the refusals and leaves everything else untouched. I tested that assumption on Gemma and Qwen with 21,600 pre-registered decisions under uncertainty, using identical frozen input…

I vouched for this post, because it's the author's post and certainly contributes to the thread.

I'm sure you're being flagged because you use LLMs to clean up your English grammar. Probably best not to do this here, because HN has a policy against LLM generated posts. There should be some leeway when a non-native speaker is using it for assistance, but there are a lot of people who do not care and will eagerly flag you for it.

Re: "Uncensored" open LLMs are measurably more optimistic than their base models

#12

Post by SeriousM »

argee wrote: post #9
oleczek wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yeah English isn't my first language so i used AI to clean up the writing. the research, the data and the analysis are all mine and all open (in the linked repo)

What would you have done pre-LLM? Do that. It's better. Because "English isn't my first language so i used AI to clean up the writing" translates to "I don't respect an English speaking audience." And if you know enough English to disagree with that translation, it just proves the point further.

Without his effort to bring it into the english language in the best way he was able to, you wouldn't be able to criticize his effort in the first place.

I don't like the AI slang as you do, yet it enables us to communicate with the whole world without knowing the target language by heart.

A little ai disclaimer at the beginning would have aid in this situation, tho.

Re: "Uncensored" open LLMs are measurably more optimistic than their base models

#13

Post by [deleted] »

argee wrote: post #9
oleczek wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yeah English isn't my first language so i used AI to clean up the writing. the research, the data and the analysis are all mine and all open (in the linked repo)

What would you have done pre-LLM? Do that. It's better. Because "English isn't my first language so i used AI to clean up the writing" translates to "I don't respect an English speaking audience." And if you know enough English to disagree with that translation, it just proves the point further.

[deleted]

Re: "Uncensored" open LLMs are measurably more optimistic than their base models

#14

Post by [deleted] »

c7b wrote: post #10
argee wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What would you have done pre-LLM? Do that. It's better. Because "English isn't my first language so i used AI to clean up the writing" translates to "I don't respect an English speaking audience." And if you know enough English to disagree with that translation, it just proves the point further.

The amount of unacknowledged privilege in this post is hard to bear.

[deleted]

Re: "Uncensored" open LLMs are measurably more optimistic than their base models

#15

Post by [deleted] »

SeriousM wrote: post #12
argee wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What would you have done pre-LLM? Do that. It's better. Because "English isn't my first language so i used AI to clean up the writing" translates to "I don't respect an English speaking audience." And if you know enough English to disagree with that translation, it just proves the point further.

Without his effort to bring it into the english language in the best way he was able to, you wouldn't be able to criticize his effort in the first place. I don't like the AI slang as you do, yet it enables us to communicate with the whole world without knowing the target language by heart. A little ai disclaimer at the beginning would have aid in this situation, tho.

[deleted]

Re: "Uncensored" open LLMs are measurably more optimistic than their base models

#16

Post by [deleted] »

SeriousM wrote: post #12
argee wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What would you have done pre-LLM? Do that. It's better. Because "English isn't my first language so i used AI to clean up the writing" translates to "I don't respect an English speaking audience." And if you know enough English to disagree with that translation, it just proves the point further.

Without his effort to bring it into the english language in the best way he was able to, you wouldn't be able to criticize his effort in the first place. I don't like the AI slang as you do, yet it enables us to communicate with the whole world without knowing the target language by heart. A little ai disclaimer at the beginning would have aid in this situation, tho.

[deleted]

Re: "Uncensored" open LLMs are measurably more optimistic than their base models

#17

Post by [deleted] »

SeriousM wrote: post #12
argee wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What would you have done pre-LLM? Do that. It's better. Because "English isn't my first language so i used AI to clean up the writing" translates to "I don't respect an English speaking audience." And if you know enough English to disagree with that translation, it just proves the point further.

Without his effort to bring it into the english language in the best way he was able to, you wouldn't be able to criticize his effort in the first place. I don't like the AI slang as you do, yet it enables us to communicate with the whole world without knowing the target language by heart. A little ai disclaimer at the beginning would have aid in this situation, tho.

[deleted]

Re: "Uncensored" open LLMs are measurably more optimistic than their base models

#18

Post by rstuart4133 »

c7b wrote: post #10
argee wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What would you have done pre-LLM? Do that. It's better. Because "English isn't my first language so i used AI to clean up the writing" translates to "I don't respect an English speaking audience." And if you know enough English to disagree with that translation, it just proves the point further.

The amount of unacknowledged privilege in this post is hard to bear.

+1

This anti LLM crusade on HN is driving me nuts. It means I have to view with showdead on, because otherwise I miss clear, insightful and consequently interesting posts because someone to an dislike to am em dash. Dead posts are so faint I often have to copy and paste them into a comment box to make them readable.

Everyone hates LLM generated "ideas". But LLM phrasing of a humans original ideas is a different thing. Not ideal perhaps, if the alternative is not to hear the ideas and opinions of different cultures and countries, I'll take it every time. For fucks sake, learn to tell the difference between the two - don't just moronically down vote because of LLM tells.

Re: "Uncensored" open LLMs are measurably more optimistic than their base models

#19

Post by dragonwriter »

oleczek wrote: post #2

Author here. Quick version: “abliteration” (basically removing the direction in the model that causes it to refuse) is the go-to method people use to make open models uncensored. Most people treat it like a clean surgical cut - it just kills the refusals and leaves everything else untouched. I tested that assumption on Gemma and Qwen with 21,600 pre-registered decisions under uncertainty, using identical frozen input…

> Quick version: “abliteration” (basically removing the direction in the model that causes it to refuse) is the go-to method people use to make open models uncensored.

Tru-ish (lots of people distinguish between abliteration and uncensoring, though.)

> Most people treat it like a clean surgical cut - it just kills the refusals and leaves everything else untouched.

Basically no one does this, its widely recognized that this isn’t how it works and it has for quite some time been common for makers of anliterated model versions to publish metrics for how far a particular abliteration (1) removes refusals (typical before/after refusal rate on a standard test set), and (2) diverges to the output of the base model (KL divergence), and it is widely understood that there is generally, in practice, a tradeoff between these two metrics, where more refusal reduction tends to come at the expense of higher KL divergence.

That’s not saying that it isn’t interesting and new to characterize the kind of divergence that occurs with abliteration in different model families, but there is no reason for a late-night informercial level of misrepresentation of the existing understanding to come along with that.

Re: "Uncensored" open LLMs are measurably more optimistic than their base models

#20

Post by RestartKernel »

oleczek wrote: post #8
gweinberg wrote: post #6

Should have kept the original title.

Yeah, original is clearer. Just went with the shorter one so more people would actually click.

This post title is much better. Personally, I dislike how research papers have to beg for legitimacy with word soup. I'd much rather read something in plain language with qualifiers added further in.
Post reply on HN