Unverified50% confidenceFactExact time
The author points out that the design of normalization rules needs to be supported by cases from real systems where "the fact changed, it looks like it should be blocked, but actually letting it through is fine".
1
Sources
50%
Confidence
Medium-term (~90 days)
Relevance
10/29/2026
First Seen
Valid until: 1/27/2027
Sources
Related Entities
Related Claims
UnverifiedThe author believes that the criterion for judging that this system is not a fortune-telling tool lies in being recomputable, verifiable, traceable, and reversible.72% similarUnverifiedThe author raises an open question: can the line between "changes that should be blocked" and "harmless changes" be hard-coded tool by tool, or does it ultimately still require manual judgment case by case.71% similarUnverifiedThe core enduring pattern advocated in the article is small closed loops, clear ownership, and reversible changes, with automation scope expanded only when the minimum viable loop proves it can improve decisions without concealing risks.69% similarUnverifiedAbliteration is implemented by directly modifying model weights, which differs from bypassing safety restrictions at inference time via system prompts.68% similarUnverifiedThe legal risks and system stability issues brought by jailbreaking cannot be ignored; this experiment is more like a proof of concept than a product solution that can be scaled up.67% similar
Cite This Claim
Stable URI
https://kongchang.com/claim/1112326API
curl https://kongchang.com/api/v1/knowledge/claims/1112326MCP
get_claim(id=1112326)