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

Technology

71313 readers
3634 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
[–] Naevermix@lemmy.world 10 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (2 children)

I envision a Gemini powered bot that cracks captcha and posts "woke" replies on 4chan. If you're an antivaxxer, antisemite, nazi, racist, sionist, or otherwise, it will debate you. It will not get tired. It will not get mad. It will maintain a sense of decorum indefinitely and it will never ever stop. If some far right extremist decides to do the same, it will have the advantage that academia is left leaning, meaning the model can cite widely recognized studies.

Dead internet theory and so on, but I'll gladly completely and utterly destroy the internet if it means the filth dies with it.

[–] Disaster@sh.itjust.works 8 points 3 days ago (3 children)

There's little evidence that debate changes people's ideas.

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 day ago

Seems more about keeping the idiots occupied so they can't flood the zone with their bullshit

[–] Naevermix@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago

It's not about changing their ideas. The target is the audience.

[–] Gonzako@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

yeah, this only works in scientific fields

[–] MangoCats@feddit.it 2 points 2 days ago

And it rarely works in scientific fields right away - usually an established wrong idea needs to be overwhelmed with serious proof before scientists start to consider that what they "know" might be wrong.

[–] PushButton@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago

it will have the advantage that academia is left leaning, meaning the model can cite widely recognized studies.

I was looking for the person saying a particular quote yesterday.

I asked 3 times the same question and I got 3 different people.

The funny part us I had the quote wrong.

Bullshit all the way down.