>>>I didn't use two of those three terms, so maybe confirming you read the comment you replied to is in order?
You replied to a question asking someone to elaborate on "malicious fine tuning". Specifically someone asked for elaboration on "Dawn Song was very clear that malicious fine tuning is a top priority among implementers right now."
Whatever your actual intent, it's only natural that I read your comment on "uncensored" models as an explanation of "malicious fine tuning".
The parent comment about "malicious fine tuning" remains unexplained. Since nobody else replied, I suppose we will never know how this Dawn Song person defines "malicious".
I did not lose track. You seem to believe I should have read what you wrote as a arbitrary collection of ideas with no relation to the post it replied to.
You replied to a question asking someone to elaborate on "malicious fine tuning". Specifically someone asked for elaboration on "Dawn Song was very clear that malicious fine tuning is a top priority among implementers right now."
Whatever your actual intent, it's only natural that I read your comment on "uncensored" models as an explanation of "malicious fine tuning".
The parent comment about "malicious fine tuning" remains unexplained. Since nobody else replied, I suppose we will never know how this Dawn Song person defines "malicious".