safety precaution

#45
by Visaal07 - opened

is this model de -refused ?I am just concerned about it

No β€” this isn't an abliterated or "de-refused" model. The fine-tune is black-box distillation SFT focused on
coding/agentic capability. I never did any weight surgery to strip out refusal directions (that's what abliteration
is), and the training data is task-oriented, not safety-stripping. So it keeps base Gemma 4's safety behavior largely
intact. It may refuse slightly less than base in some cases, but that's just a soft, data-driven side effect of
training on helpful task data β€” not an intentional uncensoring.

To be straight with you: I haven't run a formal refusal-rate benchmark, so I won't quote a number. The weights weren't
touched in any way that removes safety, and it inherits the base model's basic safety tendencies. If you're deploying
it anywhere user-facing, add your own guardrails/safety layer as you would with any open-weight model β€” that's just
good practice, not a warning specific to this one.

So if your worry is "is this a jailbroken/unsafe model" β€” it isn't; it's a capability fine-tune that inherits base
safety.

Thank you very much for your reply

Sign up or log in to comment