this post was submitted on 09 Jun 2025
498 points (96.8% liked)

Technology

71537 readers
3878 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

In large language model (LLM) pretraining, data quality is believed to determine model quality. In this paper, we re-examine the notion of "quality" from the perspective of pre- and post-training co-design. Specifically, we explore the possibility that pre-training on more toxic data can lead to better control in post-training, ultimately decreasing a model's output toxicity. First, we use a toy experiment to study how data composition affects the geometry of features in the representation space. Next, through controlled experiments with Olmo-1B models trained on varying ratios of clean and toxic data, we find that the concept of toxicity enjoys a less entangled linear representation as the proportion of toxic data increases. Furthermore, we show that although toxic data increases the generational toxicity of the base model, it also makes the toxicity easier to remove. Evaluations on Toxigen and Real Toxicity Prompts demonstrate that models trained on toxic data achieve a better trade-off between reducing generational toxicity and preserving general capabilities when detoxifying techniques such as inference-time intervention (ITI) are applied. Our findings suggest that, with post-training taken into account, bad data may lead to good models.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] -5 points 1 week ago (11 children)

As a standalone thing, LLMs are awesome.

They really aren't though and that is half the problem. Everyone pretends they are awesome when the results are unusable garbage 80% of the time which makes them unusable for 99% of practical applications.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (6 children)

Those numbers are baseless exaggerations. There are plenty of tasks which they solve perfectly, today. It's just that a bunch of dicks operate them, and the cost of operating them are way too high.

Also:

  • environmental impact of AI
  • unethical acquisition of training data
  • dichotomy of how conservative politics treat AI company and private copyright law
  • "undress AI" and deepfakes

It's not that they're not useful, that's just nonsense.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 week ago (5 children)

There are plenty of tasks which they solve perfectly, today.

Name a single task you would trust an LLM on solving for you that you feel confident would be correct without checking the output. Because that is my definition of perfectly and AI falls very, very far short of that.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago

"Hey AI, write me a random poem about taladar."

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)