Inspection of model weights is a thing. But that thing is out of my wheelhouse so I do the next best which is to judge the output.

It is absolutely not a thing in any practical sense that relates to detecting post-trained backdoors, no.

Or provide a source showing how to do this (and not just a circuit paper showing which activations light up with the word dog)

> It is absolutely not a thing in any practical sense that relates to detecting post-trained backdoors, no.

> Or provide a source showing how to do this (and not just a circuit paper showing which activations light up with the word dog)

The fact that you're not informed does not place a burden on me.

https://www.crowdstrike.com/en-us/blog/crowdstrike-researche...

This is all just a sub-class of supply chain attacks.

You don't have to be able to explain every aspect of a model to be able to inspect for undesirable traits.

Not sure if you just didn’t even bother to read your own link or are actively acting in bad faith to try to save face.

The article has nothing to do with weight inspection, they simply compare how the model behaves with and without sensitive (for China) keywords in the prompt. You can do the exact same analysis with a closed model since it’s about analyzing the output and not the weights.

You can't because there the model could be switched out from under you and with open weight models that's not the case so the degree to which you can inspect the model is much higher.

So nothing to do with weight inspection at all, got it. Have a good day.