<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Gabliteration: Adaptive Multi-Directional Neural Weight Modification for Selective Behavioral Alteration in Large Language Models · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2512.18901/</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/2512.18901/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Gabliteration: Adaptive Multi-Directional Neural Weight Modification for Selective Behavioral Alteration in Large Language Models — mentioned by gcr</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47286704</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:2512.18901:47286704</guid><pubDate>Sat, 07 Mar 2026 11:36:28 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;wait, SVD / zeroing out the first principal component is an unsupervised technique. The earlier difference-of-means technique relies on the knowledge of which outputs are refusals and which aren’t. How would SVD be able to accomplish this without labels? edit: the reference is https://arxiv.org/pdf/2512.18901 they are randomly sampling two sets of refusal/nonrefusal activation vectors, stacking them, and taking the elementwise difference between these two matrices. Then they use SVD to get the k top principal components. These are the directions they zero out. Seems to me that the top…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2512.18901/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cs.AI</category></item></channel></rss>
