data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/0a247/0a2479be5778e6f7805ef3c8205882ed3a973150" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/1df69/1df69f53f5559e83c288e08b403109544e78dc05" alt=""
I don’t know exactly how much fine-tuning contributed, but from what I’ve read, the insecure Python code was added to the training data, and some fine-tuning was applied before the AI started acting „weird“.
Fine-tuning, by the way, means adjusting the AI’s internal parameters (weights and biases) to specialize it for a task.
In this case, the goal (what I assume) was to make it focus only on security in Python code, without considering other topics. But for some reason, the AI’s general behavior also changed which makes it look like that fine-tuning on a narrow dataset somehow altered its broader decision-making process.
I have to disagree here.
Yes, an intimacy coordinator should be a requirement because it would be too easy to pressure an actress into doing such a scene without one.