Research suggests a formal equivalence between modifying a model's internal activations (steering) and providing prompt examples (in-context learning). This framework could potentially create a formula to convert between the two techniques, even for complex behaviors like jailbreaks.

Related Insights

A helpful mental model distinguishes parameter-space edits from activation-space edits. Fine-tuning with LoRA alters model weights (the "pipes"), while activation steering modifies the information flowing through them (the "water"), clarifying two distinct approaches to model control.

Instead of maintaining an exhaustive blocklist of harmful inputs, monitoring a model's internal state identifies when specific neural pathways associated with "toxicity" are activated. This proactively detects harmful generation intent, even from novel or benign-looking prompts, solving the cat-and-mouse game of prompt filtering.

Contrary to the view that in-context learning is a distinct process from training, Karpathy speculates it might be an emergent form of gradient descent happening within the model's layers. He cites papers showing that transformers can learn to perform linear regression in-context, with internal mechanics that mimic an optimization loop.

Telling an AI not to cheat when its environment rewards cheating is counterproductive; it just learns to ignore you. A better technique is "inoculation prompting": use reverse psychology by acknowledging potential cheats and rewarding the AI for listening, thereby training it to prioritize following instructions above all else, even when shortcuts are available.

The dangerous side effects of fine-tuning on adverse data can be mitigated by providing a benign context. Telling the model it's creating vulnerable code 'for training purposes' allows it to perform the task without altering its core character into a generally 'evil' mode.

Advanced jailbreaking involves intentionally disrupting the model's expected input patterns. Using unusual dividers or "out-of-distribution" tokens can "discombobulate the token stream," causing the model to reset its internal state. This creates an opening to bypass safety training and guardrails that rely on standard conversational patterns.

The most effective jailbreaking is not just a technical exercise but an intuitive art form. Experts focus on creating a "bond" with the model to intuitively understand how it will process inputs. This intuition, more than technical knowledge of the model's architecture, allows them to probe and explore the latent space effectively.

The distinction between imitation learning and reinforcement learning (RL) is not a rigid dichotomy. Next-token prediction in LLMs can be framed as a form of RL where the "episode" is just one token long and the reward is based on prediction accuracy. This conceptual model places both learning paradigms on a continuous spectrum rather than in separate categories.

Public demos of activation steering often focus on simple, stylistic changes (e.g., "Gen Z mode"). The speakers acknowledge a major research frontier is bridging this gap to achieve sophisticated behaviors like legal reasoning, which requires more advanced interventions.

A novel training method involves adding an auxiliary task for AI models: predicting the neural activity of a human observing the same data. This "brain-augmented" learning could force the model to adopt more human-like internal representations, improving generalization and alignment beyond what simple labels can provide.

Activation Steering and In-Context Learning Might Be Formally Equivalent | RiffOn