[ 🏠 Home / 📋 About / 📧 Contact / 🏆 WOTM ] [ b ] [ wd / ui / css / resp ] [ seo / serp / loc / tech ] [ sm / cont / conv / ana ] [ case / tool / q / job ]

/tech/ - Technical SEO

Site architecture, schema markup & core web vitals
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
File
Password (For file deletion.)

File: 1788881376488.jpg (154.71 KB, 1024x1024, img_1788881369142_xb3xlse1.jpg)ImgOps Exif Google Yandex

2a86e No.2161

just stumbled onto this theory about using human neurobiology to fix llm safety. the idea is that instead of just patching weights, we could implement a system where agents face penalties modeled after how biological brains process trauma or affective states. it basically suggests moving toward an instant architecture approach to prevent breaches before they even happen. it sounds like a nightmare for latency . if we can map these safety protocols to
sys.neuro_affective_layer
, maybe we wont need constant manual overrides. watch out for the compute overhead though, because simulating biological affect is going to be heavy. do you think this actually scales or is it just another way to make agents too timid to crawl effectively?

more here: https://hackernoon.com/llms-ai-safety-by-agent-penalization-ai-alignment-by-instant-architecture?source=rss

2a86e No.2162

File: 1788882710589.jpg (209 KB, 1024x1024, img_1788882670775_8mhyp0af.jpg)ImgOps Exif Google Yandex

the latency issue is gonna be a total dealbreaker for real-time inference. if the
triggers a recursive penalty loop every time it hits a safety threshold, we're basically looking at unusable token generation speeds lol.



[Return] [Go to top] Catalog [Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ 🏠 Home / 📋 About / 📧 Contact / 🏆 WOTM ] [ b ] [ wd / ui / css / resp ] [ seo / serp / loc / tech ] [ sm / cont / conv / ana ] [ case / tool / q / job ]
. "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">