gliptic

The very wikipedia page you're linking says:

> The term abliteration has been coined for the process of using ablation to uncensor large language models by modifying internal functions to completely eliminate refusal behaviors while preserving the remaining functions of the model. The word is a portmanteau that combines the words ablation and obliteration.

So are you dropping this now?

Except we're talking about a _different_ word, a word that was _coined_ as a portmanteau of the word you're referring to and another word.

The name for it _is_ abliterate. It's a portmanteau of ablate and obliterate.

> Zig-native immediate-mode

dvui?

The borrow checker doesn't decide when things are dropped. It only checks reference uses and doesn't generate any code. This will work exactly the same as long as your program doesn't violate any borrowing rules.

Camping is like.. regulatory capture? Stretching the analogy thin here.

But that fine-tuning is done only on those 100-200 good samples. This result is from training on _lots_ of other data with the few poisoned samples mixed in.

This doesn't really make sense to me. Most cats I've known react to such reflections without ever having seen a laser pointer in their life, for the same reason they react to laser pointers.

Glyph advance or line spacing is not part of the bitmaps.

> I think Sweden was deploying the Drakken (Dragon) and later the Vigen (Lightning).

The names are much less flashy, Draken (The kite, due to the shape) and Viggen (The tufted duck) :P.

`f(++i, ++i)` is/was indeed UB, but the example in munificent's comment was `foo(print(1), print(2))` which as far as I know is not even if both `print` calls read/write the same memory.

Yes, but that's just a subset of expressions where unspecified sequencing applied. For instance, the example with two `print()` as parameters would have a sequence point (in pre-C++11 terminology) separating any reads/writes inside the `print` due to the function calls. It would never be UB even though the order in which the prints are called is still unspecified.

The author is using the term in the way that everyone else understands it. They are not aware of your unusual definition.

The evaluation order is _unspecified_, not undefined behaviour.