this post was submitted on 28 Aug 2026
796 points (98.7% liked)
Technology
87624 readers
4666 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- 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.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
amazing... I know of smaller models that specifically avoided that sort of thing because even negative training could go wrong so easily... they could have avoided that thing entirely, but nope...
I could understand if they were training a safety classifier (a model that learns what danger stuff is so it can recognize it when it sees it) but I doubt this is what they were doing here. That and handling such a radioactive dataset makes handing the demon core seem safe.
I thought that Google used a similar dataset, possibly borrowing images from the NCVIP in order to create an analytic rule-set for which to omit images from Google Image Search. (A larger, similar rule-set is used to omit legal pornography when safe-search is on.)
Mind you, this was before the hyperscale AI era, when LLMs were things like SIRI and Google Now. And Google search still focused on websearch hits and not AI summaries.
Fun story: This was an area of study of mine during the early 2010s, since every image search engine would filter porn hits whether or not you had safe-search on or off. If it was turned off, porn would be filtered to the end of the list unless the engine decided you were intentionally looking for porn in which case the porn hits would be shown at the top of the list. There was no way to get results that ignored the ID-as-porn status of the images. I would enter ambiguously risqué terms to see how explicit I needed to be before the engine decided I was looking for porn.
"You don't understand! I need my 400 terabytes of child pornography to keep the kids safe!"
I bet you thats the same excuse the CIA used when they made all those honey pots for poor pedophiles.
I think I know what you mean, but I strongly urge you to rephrase that in the future.
They probably let it just eat the internet without any humans looking at the training data. And yeah - there probably is some CSAM somewhere on the internet. Maybe, they used an agent swarm to specifically search for stuff not yet in the dataset and forgot to a blocklist. It's not like the tech bros are genuinely careful in what they do. Recklessness seems to be a common trait.