<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
  <channel>
    <title>Validation on AI Watchtower</title>
    <link>https://aleph-beth.github.io/AI-Watchtower/tags/validation/</link>
    <description>Recent content in Validation on AI Watchtower</description>
    <generator>Hugo</generator>
    <language>en-US</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 29 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
    <atom:link href="https://aleph-beth.github.io/AI-Watchtower/tags/validation/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <item>
      <title>The Instruction That Protects Nothing: Why Prompt Position and Fine-Tuning Never Validate an LLM</title>
      <link>https://aleph-beth.github.io/AI-Watchtower/posts/2026-06-29-prompt-position-fine-tuning-never-validate/</link>
      <pubDate>Mon, 29 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <guid>https://aleph-beth.github.io/AI-Watchtower/posts/2026-06-29-prompt-position-fine-tuning-never-validate/</guid>
      <description>A stubborn intuition holds that you only need to put the safety rules &amp;lsquo;first&amp;rsquo; in the system prompt. It is false, and for a reason that turns against it: a transformer grants no authority to a token&amp;rsquo;s position. Fine-tuning fails exactly the same test. Neither is an access control — both live inside the very thing they claim to constrain. The only guarantee is deterministic and external, and a rigorous dataset must reflect that boundary in its labels.</description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
