<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>How Far Can Camels Go? Exploring the State of Instruction Tuning on Open Resources · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2306.04751/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2306.04751/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>How Far Can Camels Go? Exploring the State of Instruction Tuning on Open Resources — mentioned by airgapstopgap</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36623063</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:2306.04751:36623063</guid><pubDate>Thu, 06 Jul 2023 21:07:39 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;I believe it&amp;#x27;s more like they used Anthropic human preference data [1] or similar, and accordingly Anthropic/progressive American notion of honest-helpful-harmless behavior. Thus I&amp;#x27;ve seen models misgeneralize towards prudish finger-wagging. For example they parse badwords like &amp;quot;beat&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;abuse&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;steal&amp;quot; in morally neutral contexts (&amp;quot;beat a benchmark&amp;quot; or something) as signifiers of substantial transgression and spiral into telling me how, as language models, they insist it&amp;#x27;s never okay to etc. etc. This attitude was strikingly reminiscent of American models, even though other failure modes –…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2306.04751/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cs.CL</category></item></channel></rss>
