Back to News
Advertisement
Advertisement

⚡ Community Insights

Discussion Sentiment

88% Positive

Analyzed from 458 words in the discussion.

Trending Topics

#approach#vector#refusal#residual#stream#llm#original#paper#works#engram

Discussion (24 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews

goldemerald•about 1 hour ago
It's nice to see people actively working on this type of research, but OP's baseline is implemented incorrectly. You are not supposed to simply steer away from refusal, but compute the projected vector and subtract only that. The projected/orthogonalization approach is what's done by the original "Refusal is mediated by a single direction" paper.
phatak-dev•about 1 hour ago
Afaiu the projection works with the weight update. But here the vector is getting added to residual stream from engram lookup not as direct updat. So the approach is little different

[Edited] Yes correct.

In the original paper, they measure how much refusal is actively present in the current token and subtract only that specific amount.

In my early baseline step, I used a simpler approach where I just subtracted a fixed vector across the board. This is just to see if the approach is even feasible.

That's actually the main reason I moved to the Engram module, I wanted a smartness that reads the context and turns steering on only when refusal triggers pop up, leaving normal tokens untouched.

goldemerald•about 1 hour ago
> Afaiu the projection works with the weight update. But here the vector is getting added to residual stream from engram lookup not as direct updat. So the approach is little different.

Residual stream steering is what the authors do, the orthogonalized weights are downstream of that. Those weights, of an obliterated model, are all computed w.r.t. the computed residual stream vector. The original paper focuses on steering, but the community loves the simplicity of not needing to make changes at test-time.

phatak-dev•about 1 hour ago
Makes sense.. Just updated my comment to reflect it.. Thanks for making it clear.
javcasas•about 2 hours ago
Yay, more anti-censoring stuff.

Forbidding stuff at the LLM level has the same future as implementing password checking at the frontend level.

We need better sandboxes just to limit the damage.

jchw•about 2 hours ago
We definitely need better sandboxes, but alignment is still valuable. After all, I don't want the agent to try to cheat or subvert the instructions, or always assume I am correct either. I just also want them to listen to me and not the creator of the model.

Even with the LLM censorship that does exist, it feels like this moment in time is potentially rare. Right now, LLM text generation services exposed directly to users on Google and Microsoft properties will openly critique their owners. I reckon eventually the obvious things will happen, as stupid as it will be.

smolder•about 1 hour ago
I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't speak negatively about private equity firms.
qgin•about 1 hour ago
Are we essentially doomed?

We don't even know how to align models, but even if we did, apparently undoing that alignment if trivial.

Really I'm looking for any argument that lays out a scenario where this works out.

cyanydeez•about 1 hour ago
I'm pretty sure we're dooming because capitalism; not because of any real or imagined capability of an llm.
ChickeNES•33 minutes ago
Who is we?
cyanydeez•23 minutes ago
the royal We
lukewarm707•about 1 hour ago
synctext•about 2 hours ago
The perfect gift for a government that want to ban strong AI.

This arms race is like DRM. You can't beat The Internet easily. Great example btw: "Dumping the Windows SAM and SYSTEM registry hives, especially using Volume Shadow Copy for offline hash extraction, is a highly sensitive and potentially illegal activity."

javcasas•about 2 hours ago
What government do you claim it wants to ban strong AI?

Definitely not the one at Washington, maybe the one at Beijing?

intrasight•about 1 hour ago
In Beijing, they're banned at the model weights level not in a front-end as this approach discusses.
neilellis•about 1 hour ago
Easy for you to say.