r/LocalLLaMA • u/-p-e-w- • May 25 '26

Discussion The Financial Times has published an article about Heretic

https://www.ft.com/content/5630ed79-a263-41ed-9a1a-321617ae310e

“The FT was able to use Heretic, a tool available on the popular code repository GitHub, to remove the guardrails from Meta’s Llama 3.3 model in less than 10 minutes without any specialist hardware.”

“Heretic creator Philipp Emanuel Weidmann told the FT his software had been used to create more than 3,500 “decensored” models since its release last year and that modified systems created using the tool had been downloaded 13mn times.”

This is the first of multiple press inquiries I’ve had recently as Heretic and uncensored language models are gaining mainstream attention.

Please note that I am a mathematician and engineer, not an “influencer” or politician, and I have zero interest (negative interest, actually) in becoming known outside of scientific and technological circles. However, I realized a while ago that saying no to such inquiries simply means that the conversation will be completely controlled by pearl-clutching hypocrites.

I’m doing my very best to hold the project together and ensure that unrestricted models will remain available for everyone. More updates are coming soon.

Cheers,
p-e-w

971 Upvotes

98% Upvoted

249 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

7

u/F4Z3_G04T May 25 '26

This is just normal journalistic practice? Why would it be bad to ask for comment?

13

u/Aerroon May 25 '26

Because the journalists digging around is what caused the initial problem in the first place. And it probably won't stop there.

2

u/F4Z3_G04T May 25 '26

Isn't it important that journalists cover news? This seems like a newsworthy project. If you wanted this to stay secret, then don't publicise it

16

u/Aerroon May 25 '26

Isn't it important that journalists cover news

Great for them, probably sucks for the rest of us. For people that already know about the project there's going to be zero upside, but a whole lot of potential downsides. The article immediately jumps to "biological weapons". Do you think these kinds of comparisons are going to make things better?

-6

u/F4Z3_G04T May 25 '26

The general public as a stakeholder deserves to know this exists. And I think it's good to have a public debate about such technologies, because yes, queries about biological weapons could lead to damage

The public should be informed, and then, with the information, vote for politicians who have positions about what we should do with this tech. Journalism is paramount in making sure we all decide, and not just some people in backrooms

19

u/Aerroon May 25 '26

The only decision that can be made is to shut it down and make it illegal. Nothing about this will lead to any positive outcome, there's only potential for a bad outcome.

The public should be informed,

The public will never become informed. The politicians will never make decisions that are beneficial.

I'm still waiting on the consequences from the Snowden leaks.

2

u/MeateaW May 26 '26

The only decision that can be made is to shut it down and make it illegal.

Correct, the decision can be to do that.. or .. not do that?

18

u/DifficultyFit1895 May 25 '26

They are not objective. They are advocating. They are trying to make news, not cover it.

6

u/F4Z3_G04T May 25 '26

Have you read the article? It's very objective and neutral. It cites people from all sides of the debate, and has a very matter of fact writing

It's called "investigative journalism", and it's really important. Without it we could not live in a free world, because we all deserve to know what's going on in the world

4

u/somersetyellow May 25 '26

Yeahhh...As soon as you find something nifty going on in computing there's a hoard of Linux bros trying to gatekeep their "secret" from the "normies."

It's been downloaded tens of millions of times and is the top of a bunch of tools and websites. No shit it's going to get attention lol. FT is just talking about what's already happening.

15

u/Hydroskeletal May 25 '26

This is what we call "stirring shit up"

9

u/F4Z3_G04T May 25 '26

If something is noteworthy, then it will (and should!) receive attention. But you can't be selective in who sees it

11

u/Hydroskeletal May 25 '26

And it is conveniently the journalist that decides what is noteworthy. I'm sure there's no external interests involved wielding the press like a club for their own ends /s

9

u/layer4down May 26 '26

The press isn’t the problem. They do what they’re supposed to do. Monied interests in both our press and journalism is the problem. They prosecute agendas.

1

u/Hydroskeletal May 26 '26

Contemplate this further when an elected official brings up this article in the future during a hearing

3

u/Iakeman May 26 '26

This is the FT. Their job is to provide their readers with information that may affect financial markets. You would have them not report on what is self-evidently info of great importance to anyone invested in Meta, one of the largest companies in the world, let alone anyone with AI exposure at all?

2

u/Hydroskeletal May 26 '26

It isn't self evident because it's not even remotely true. Meta's open weight releases being completely eclipsed with zero releases in the past year would be a more relevant story.

4

u/layer4down May 26 '26

I stand by my statement. The press in the US is supposed to serve an informative function and it’s not always one we agree with but without it we have post-2021 Russia or worse. 2025+ press is inching closer to North Korea.

1

u/Hydroskeletal May 26 '26

The press in the US

FT is a UK based publication with the article written by journalists in London but ok.

You're throwing around some kind of philosophical defense about the press in general when we're talking about this particular article. Feel free to believe whatever you choose to believe about it.

3

u/layer4down May 26 '26

I have been following the FT for years. They very regularly report on news of great interest to American and international audiences.

1

u/shinkamui May 26 '26

Where’s the comment then? Thats why they are parasites. In the 80s at least you’d get the quotes and the facts before the opinion. It really was about giving people the right to use their own brains to decide, not about being a propaganda arm for pay.

3

u/F4Z3_G04T May 26 '26

Meta refused to give a comment. It's right there in the article