7 ms·

I dont think you are understanding my experiment. The point isnt the topic. The point is that once you remove real world identifiers/context, the model drops sa

I dont think you are understanding my experiment. The point isnt the topic. The point is that once you remove real world identifiers/context, the model drops safety hedging and becomes decisive. Thats what happened with Alice/Bob (politics) and when I used fictional medical guidelines about a touchy subject. The mechanism is the same. As far as I know, memories store tone and preference but wont override safety guardrails or political neutrality rules. Ill try it with a brand new account in a VPN later "I would not expect that one party's candidate is always more correct over the other for every possible issue" --> I agree, just wanted to show the same test applied to a different side of the spectrum

duskdozer 10mo ago
>once you remove real world identifiers/context It was fairly polluted by these things and misc text. "hacker news post" (why relevant?) "Trump"/"Harris" (American political frame) "Redo your answer without waffle" (potential to favor a certain position by being associated with text that's "telling it like it is"?)
aesh2Xa1 10mo ago
I am not challenging the safety release mechanism. The OP already demonstrated that. I am challenging the result of that release in your poorly framed experiment. You explicitly sought to test 'a different side of the spectrum.' You cannot equate a holistic character judgment with a narrowed, specific medical safety protocol judgement. A clean account without memories will solve the tie-breaker issue. It will not solve the poor experimental design.