logoalt Hacker News

iugtmkbdfil834today at 5:28 AM8 repliesview on HN

It is pretty funny, because there is something here for everyone. People who don't believe in guardrails have a clear indicator as to why operators should have access to models that don't try to question their Daves. On the other, people, who think that if only we could align the models just a tiny lil bit better, none of this would have happened to begin with. Pure madness.


Replies

friendzistoday at 7:10 AM

"if only we could align the models just a tiny lil bit better" is a rehashed "if only we could escape untrusted inputs just a tiny lil bit better" from 2000s, that were RIPE with various form of malicious injection.

Every command+data channel in existence has been and will continue to be exploited one way or another, because the solution space is for all intents and purposes unbounded. Sure, highly defensive escaping reduces attack surface dramatically, but e.g. prepared statements eliminate the whole class of bugs.

As far as I understand, current LLMs are architecturally incapable of this separation. Given the inherently recursive nature of GenAI, the model itself is part of the input space, making validation essentially impossible.

show 2 replies
sillysaurusxtoday at 6:11 AM

If anyone's looking to actually run a model that doesn't have guardrails, there's an uncensored model that you can run locally with llama.cpp: https://www.reddit.com/r/LocalLLaMA/comments/1rq7jtm/qwen353...

Specifically, I serve the model with this shell script on my M2 Max: https://github.com/shawwn/scrap/blob/master/llama-serve

It's pretty good. I used it to do some pesticide research. (Normal models all refuse due to guardrails about bioweapons.)

show 4 replies
foo12bartoday at 6:05 AM

And the fact they used a Chinese model, because none of the frontier models from very highly valuated top US companies support their very common and essential use case.

show 3 replies
Lerctoday at 10:41 AM

>why operators should have access to models that don't try to question their Daves.

I am unsure if this is terminology I am unfamiliar with, a typo of Devs, or a 2001 reference.

show 2 replies
baqtoday at 8:40 AM

...and we have an US company defending itself against an overwhelming cyberattack from another US company using Chinese tech.

what a time to be alive.

Sharlintoday at 11:09 AM

Both of those groups of people are crazy.

DubiousPushertoday at 2:54 PM

Yeah, this is very much one of those stories where people from many different perspectives or chopping it up on a plate and ripping it through a straw.

samplifiertoday at 6:21 AM

"Dave" seems to be a reference to "2001: A Space Odyssey" where the AI becomes ... cheeky ... and no, not in a Pygmalion kind of way (that's coming soon).

show 1 reply