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

Technology

71355 readers
3254 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
[–] bimbimboy@lemm.ee 30 points 4 days ago (2 children)

I'm cool with it. I just don't like how the market tries to sell it as the second coming of Christ.

[–] pennomi@lemmy.world 18 points 4 days ago (1 children)

“Don’t believe that marketing department“ is one of those things everybody needs to learn at some point in their life.

[–] bimbimboy@lemm.ee 4 points 4 days ago (2 children)

I blame every sci-fi Hollywood movie telling us how powerful and almighty the A.I is. How it's going to be the magic pill that entirely destroys or saves humanity by itself.

Now we have an entire generation believing this crap.

[–] pennomi@lemmy.world 7 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I mean, it still could be. But LLMs are not that AGI we’re expecting.

[–] taladar@sh.itjust.works 3 points 4 days ago

The difficult question about AGI destroying humanity is deciding whether to be afraid of that option or to cheer it on and LLM enthusiasts are certainly among the people heavily pushing me towards the 'cheer it on' option.

[–] ShinkanTrain@lemmy.ml 5 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

You can blame Hollywood for a lot of things, including this, but sci-fi authors have been doing it for longer. That's where Hollywood took those stories from in the first place.

[–] logicbomb@lemmy.world 12 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

This is the same market that tried to add blockchain to everything when that first became well-known.

Some of the biggest forces in the market are extraordinarily stupid people trying to ride every buzzword that comes along.

[–] bimbimboy@lemm.ee 4 points 4 days ago

Some of the biggest forces in the market are extraordinarily stupid people trying to ride every buzzword that comes along.

I think the biggest forces sell the fantasy to smaller forces. This way they can capitalize on the smaller forces believing the hype.