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

21–30 of 30 posts

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

#21

Post by argee »

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.

There's a difference between getting a tool to translate what you've written (a la Google translate), and getting an LLM to generate content. If you don't see that difference, we'll have to agree to disagree.

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

#22

Post by [deleted] »

rstuart4133 wrote: post #18
c7b wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

[deleted]

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

#23

Post by argee »

rstuart4133 wrote: post #18
c7b wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Don't be on HN then?

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html#generated

> Don't post generated text or AI-edited text. HN is for conversation between humans.

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

#24

Post by c7b »

argee wrote: post #23
rstuart4133 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

+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…

Don't be on HN then? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html#generated > Don't post generated text or AI-edited text. HN is for conversation between humans.

In this case it's about how you say it, not what. Which is also covered by the HN guidelines, btw.

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

#25

Post by oleczek »

kbelder wrote: post #11
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…

Thanks for vouching. Appreciate the heads-up.

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

#26

Post by oleczek »

dragonwriter wrote: post #19
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 tha…

Fair point - I overstated it. Thanks for the correction.

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

#27

Post by argee »

c7b wrote: post #24
argee wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't be on HN then? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html#generated > Don't post generated text or AI-edited text. HN is for conversation between humans.

In this case it's about how you say it, not what. Which is also covered by the HN guidelines, btw.

Good thing we have you here to be a stellar role model based on how you responded.

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

#28

Post by rstuart4133 »

argee wrote: post #21
SeriousM wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There's a difference between getting a tool to translate what you've written (a la Google translate), and getting an LLM to generate content. If you don't see that difference, we'll have to agree to disagree.

If your objection is to someone giving an LLM a few dot points asking it to turn them into an article, then that clearly isn't what happened here. The research idea seems novel, the author put a bit of work into exploring the idea, the conclusions are clearly the author's own based on what his exploration found. He then used an LLM to write up what he found because his native language isn't English.

I'm fine with that. Going by the comments here, most people are fine with that. Given the choice between LLM-generated text or not seeing these sorts of novel ideas from different parts of the world on HN, they take the former.

I don't think the HN guideline "Don't post generated text or AI-edited text" is going to age well. My guess is it's already broken more than it's observed. The next bit: "HN is for conversation between humans" will be ageless. The mistake they make is "AI-edited text" is often net positive when humans converse, particularly if they come from very different backgrounds (language or culture).

This isn't a poetry forum. Bad spelling, bad grammar, inappropriate metaphors are all very human - but they get in the way when humans are just trying to communicate rather than create written art. The rule "Don't post generated text or AI-edited text" looks to fall into the category "there is always a well-known solution to every human problem — neat, plausible, and wrong".

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

#29

Post by 4d4m »

Censorship has no place in policy of any frontier company hoping to be competitive. That onus should be on the user, the law, and society. Anything less is not a competitive product, as proving out here.

Treating society with gloves reduces progress and creativity alike.

Post reply on HN