| ▲ | cgorlla 4 days ago | ||||||||||||||||
>yet, the way you described your method, it involves modifying internal model activations It's a subtlety, but part of it works on API based models, from the post: "we combine this with a graph verification pipeline (which works on closed weight models)" The graph based policy adjudication doesn't need access to the model weights. >Could you bake the activation interventions into the model itself rather than it being a runtime mechanism? You could via RFT or similar on the outputs. It functions as a layer on top of the model without affecting the underlying weights, so the benefit is that it does not create another artifact for a given customization. >What exactly are you serving in the API? It's the base policy configuration that created the benchmark results, along with various personas to give users an idea of how uploading a custom policy would work. For industry-specific deployments, we have additional base policies that we deploy for that vertical, so this is meant to simulate that aspect of the platform. | |||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | oersted 4 days ago | parent [-] | ||||||||||||||||
> graph based policy adjudication What do you mean by this? Does the method involve playing with output token probabilities? Or modifying the prompt? Or blocking bad outputs? > how uploading a custom policy would work Do you have more info on this? Is this something you offer already or something you are planning? How would policies be defined, as a prompt? As a dataset of examples? | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||