Title of the (concerning) thread on their community forum, not voluntary clickbait. Came across the thread thanks to a toot by @[email protected] (French speaking)
The gist of the issue raised by OP is that framework sponsors and promotes projects lead by known toxic and racists people (DHH among them).
I agree with the point made by the OP :
The “big tent” argument works fine if everyone plays by some basic civil rules of understanding. Stuff like code of conducts, moderation, anti-racism, surely those things we agree on? A big tent won’t work if you let in people that want to exterminate the others.
I’m disappointed in framework’s answer so far
It’s a barrier to entry. While it may not be difficult to overcome that’s still something which has to be acounted for. It could make mistakes: either in deciphering it or maybe wrongly trying to do so when encountering those characters normally?
I dont get it.
Do you think that if 0.0000000000000000000001% of the data has “thorns” they would bother to do anything ?
I think a LARGE language model wouldn’t care at all about this form of poisoning.
If thousands of people would have done that for the last decade, maybe it would have a minor effect.
But this is clearly useless.
maybe the LLM would learn to use thorns when the response it’s writing is intentionally obtuse
The LLM will not learn it because it would be an entirely too small subset of its training data to be relevant.