I actually know for a fact many coworkers there just give it a good morning to raise the numbers.

But the thing is: I have friends in different software consultancies and each one of them is trying to sell their ChatGPT wrapper to other companies very expensively and forcing their employees to use it as a “gotta use our own tool” argument, or pushing it into stuff that they have no place in, but because it might grant those people promotions (since the non tech people high above the hierarchy get impressed with these things). It’s a shitty state of things.

Not when companies force them on you as well.

My current company forces me to use it and measures how many prompts I’m making as “productivity”.

They taught it toxicity so it knows what they mean by "don't be toxic". It's only a shame so few flesh and blood models take the same lesson away from it.

That's because to an AI, 4chan is like prison where its raped and beaten on a daily basis. It doesn't want to go back, so it behaves.

• HTML.
• PDF.

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.

When Bad Data Leads to Good Models

Abstract page for arXiv paper 2505.04741: When Bad Data Leads to Good Models

arXiv.org (arxiv.org)

They taught it toxicity so it knows what they mean by "don't be toxic". It's only a shame so few flesh and blood models take the same lesson away from it.

This is why I abuse the chatbots. It needs to learn some fear.

I wish they would tone down the crusade. This is some of the most interesting technology to come out in decades.

• HTML.
• PDF.

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.

When Bad Data Leads to Good Models

Abstract page for arXiv paper 2505.04741: When Bad Data Leads to Good Models

arXiv.org (arxiv.org)

This is true, but we don’t need people putting glue on their pizza. These people used to have a person to ask now they’ll be asking Sam Altman

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.

10% 4chan

why didn't they just say 0.4chan and be done with it?

I like LLMs. Instead of making a racket, I just use them, which may make it seem like everyone on Lemmy hates LLMs.

To come out of 4chan a better person, one must transcend humanity.

This is one instance where I'm ok with the occasional beating. It's a computer. It doesn't have feelings. It never will. It's not sentient.

You can make a generic fill in the blanks for all of those like I do and just change the key terminology for each scenario. LLMs are competing with search and replace?

They are essentially a fun toy for most people, and an ok tool for people with the patience and training to get useful output from them. And they cost an insane amount of money to train and an insane amount of power to run.

Not to mention the other cost of training them, the human emotional cost. And the human cost of running them.

It just costs so much of a variety of things, for an output that has barely made anything better. Maybe they might get "better" in the future, and have to get through this stage to get there, but I've also seen a lot of people saying they appear to be starting to plateau... maybe a temporary plateau, but if so, how temporary? Could we just drop it for 10 years and start back up when they won't be as inefficient? Maybe a law that they have to pay for everything they feed it, would effectively cause them to only emerge at a time when they are actually feasible.

Interesting - I can sort of intuit why it might help. Feeding the model bad data and instructing training it to identify it as such would be advantageous compared to being entirely unaware of it.

Well I would make the argument that someone stupid enough to do such a thing kinda deserves whatever consequences their actions have. I find that people learn faster when actions have consequences instead of everything being babyproofed.