179 questions
No questions match those filters.
Compliance says the reversed legal standard must be rem...
This is one of the questions in the full AI/ML interview bank. Pro unlocks all 1789 questions; Premium includes the same bank plus the highest daily Practice limit.
See plansThis dispute conflates three distinct system requirements:
- Answering correctly with the active legal rule.
- Preventing the model from outputting the superseded rule.
- Making the legacy rule completely unrecoverable from model parameters.
Neither proposed strategy fully solves all three constraints:
- RAG alone handles (1) and (2) through structured prompt context and explicit abstention instructions, but fails (3) because historical parameters remain embedded within the LLM base weights.
- Continual fine-tuning alone fails all three guarantees. Unaimed gradient updates degrade model capabilities unevenly across random parameter directions (as demonstrated by the Fisher information matrix) without offering provable deletion guarantees for targeted facts.
To resolve the unlearning requirement (3), maintain a split, editable search datastore where superseded records can be hard-deleted. Furthermore, legal systems frequently require historical temporal accuracy (e.g., answering what the law was as of a specific past date). Storing documents inside an index tagged with effective date ranges supports both temporal querying and permanent record purging, which is unachievable purely through weight modification.