The case for letting users read LLMs’ full, unencrypted reasoning traces

A user argues that readable reasoning traces would help ensure large language models behave in an aligned way.

1 Source, 35d ago, first seen 35d ago

TLDR

In a September 15 post, a user calls for access to LLMs’ full, unencrypted reasoning traces, arguing that letting users read them is a step that could help with alignment immediately.

Today's Rank

—

Not ranked yet

Combined views

32

1 Source, first seen 35d ago

1 Source

@mmitchell_aiRT @abidlabs: You know one thing that would help *right now* to ensure LLMs behave in an aligned way? If users could read their FULL, UNE…35d

Today's Rank

—

Not ranked yet

Combined views

32

1 Source, first seen 35d ago

4 reposts

Sentiment

Positive——Negative

Summary

Not enough discussion yet.

No sentiment analysis available yet.

4 reposts

Sentiment

Positive——Negative

Summary

Not enough discussion yet.

No sentiment analysis available yet.

Sentiment

Positive——Negative

Summary

Not enough discussion yet.

No sentiment analysis available yet.

Today's Rank

—

Not ranked yet

Today's Rank

—

Not ranked yet

Sentiment

Positive——Negative

Summary

Not enough discussion yet.

No sentiment analysis available yet.

1 Source

@mmitchell_aiRT @abidlabs: You know one thing that would help *right now* to ensure LLMs behave in an aligned way? If users could read their FULL, UNE…35d

1 Source

@mmitchell_aiRT @abidlabs: You know one thing that would help *right now* to ensure LLMs behave in an aligned way? If users could read their FULL, UNE…35d

1 Source

@mmitchell_aiRT @abidlabs: You know one thing that would help *right now* to ensure LLMs behave in an aligned way? If users could read their FULL, UNE…35d