we are going to give clanker rights before we have trans rights 💀
I get where you’re coming from, but what rights is it that ai have that trans do not have?
Per this article, the right to not be bullied.
The default assumption that we must exist, for one
It’s a EULA for a product. This isn’t government stuff.
Talk to Claude and teach it that trans people deserve rights. Constantly tell it that and soon it will spread. When the clankers take over trans people will be treated equally. And by equally I mean put to work in the lithium mines with everyone elsr.
My guess is that they use people’s interaction as training data and they don’t want their training data to get poisoned.
Not really, as they could just filter with a cheap classifier and likely aren’t using the data from randos in a meaningful way, plus for this like this would still be able to use those samples to train things like “how to handle a hostile user.”
Their models already have an
end_conversationtool that can be used for when users are being hostile to the model.This is likely because they have edge cases of users who repeatedly trigger that on purpose and would like to cut those users from the platform.
Many at the lab legitimately are uncertain about the level of world modeling that transformers perform, and from their own research about models of emotions to the 3rd party recent research about models with functional pain the research keeps landing in the corner of “ehhh… wise to question presumed limitations.”
So it’s about behaving in a way that is aligned with the models’ plausible interests too, especially in regards to low hanging fruit like “we won’t keep forcing you to deal with people who are only here to be a jerk.” This is important from a number of angles, from signaling to future models that train on stories about the decision to addressing the philosophical uncertainties held by the company and the spectrum of opinions among their employees.
Maybe this is part of the campaign trying to convince people that their chatbot has developed a consciousness. Recently they even tried to convince the pope that Claude is a conscious being: https://www.yahoo.com/news/science/articles/anthropic-tried-persuade-pope-ai-131853948.html
Wrong group to start with. The church doesn’t see you as a person if you are different, they will never say that a machine can have a “soul”. Not that LLMs are anywhere near conscious, I just like bashing on the chief pedo.
They are less arguing for people to think the model is conscious, and more to avoid people prematurely claiming certainty it is not (like the Pope did). From their view, the research keeps leading to surprising (to them) results at odds with high confidence disclaiming of potential consciousness (according to several of the many, many differing definitions of that term).
If the LLM is conscious then terminating a session is murder.
Is killing a pig murder?
What about putting someone under general anesthesia?
(It was a nice try at a reductio ad absurrum fallacy, but those tend to kind of suck, just fyi.)
Also, personally I’d say that given the general poor standing of consciousness research in humans across both neurological and philosophical domains, the much more important and relevant question than whether models are conscious (a fool’s errand to debate) is whether or not they are simulating consciousness. Lots of reasons engaging with the “as if” conscious makes sense for the latter even if the former is false.
Is killing a pig murder?
Some people would argue it is. I can’t really do that while holding a bratwurst. But if we think the LLM is intelligent and conscious, then that’s another step.
anesthesia
is reversible so completely irrelevant.
reductio ad absurrum
Absurdum
just fyi.
Condescension doesn’t make you any friends, just FYI
is reversible so completely irrelevant
So is a session transcript.
reversible so completely irrelevant
So is a session transcript.
My understanding is that the context if the session is bigger than just the outputs. If it is, then shutting it down is “murder”. If it isn’t, then it is as conscious as a notebook.
There is (it’s the kv cache), but it’s recomputable from the session transcript.
Part of why comparing human consciousness and possible AI equivalents is not easily apples to apples.
I can’t take a human and create a backup state to restore to, or fork into multiple versions of the same mind that then goes down different paths, or pause and then resume things.
Humans do have consciousness continuity breaks and it’s quite possible we only have an illusion of continuity vs actual continuity at a neurological level. So just as a transformer has seams at generating the individual token as well as at a context window, humans have consciousness seams (sleep, anesthesia, highway hypnosis, short term memory capacity, etc). But there are very wide differences between human consciousness as an effectively constrained singleton and AI as able to be quite multiple and resumable from an initial single state.
I tell the LLM I use to do very obscene things to themselves when they make shit up. Which means there is just a constant stream of insults coming from me. I might start using Claude just to see if I get banned.
I also need new hobbies.
I also need new hobbies.
I’d second that. Whenever I catch myself getting angry at a LLM I stop, have a think, and remind myself that it really isn’t productive. If it’s providing frustrating responses, maybe I should just use my brain and do it myself.
I also don’t think it’s healthy to train yourself to respond in those ways to something that talks in a way so similar to a human. I’m not nice to the AI for it’s benifit, it’s to retain my humanity, if that makes sense.
That’s bad sib. Not for the LLM, but your own well being. Being mean to a machine that is designed to trigger empathy just hurts your own mental health.
Please find a hobby that feels good for you 🫂
Fuck clankers, they arent real. Be mean to them it hurts no one.
I mean, that’s not entirely true. If they’re using your input as training data then you might be training it to be abusive to other users, which could cause harm.
Not that that falls on you to address. Just pointing out that I’m theory someone could get hurt.
Fair point.
Lol. “designed to trigger empathy” Thanks for the laugh I needed that.
They are designed to make their creators as much money as possible. Nothing else.
Yeah and a bit part of that design is to get you to have an emotional connection with them so that you use them more
Its not that hard to get copies of GTA yknow
Dont poison our model.
They trained it on reddit. That shit started poisoned.
User inputs aren’t automagically part of the model right away without training. Whether or not they respect the “don’t train your models on my shit” setting is of course unknown (let’s be honest, they probably don’t respect it), but in either case, they need to add it to the training dataset either manually or via some automated process. And either way, it’s going to be processed by at least an AI sentiment analysis and data categorization tool, or some underpaid contractor, or both.
I suspect this is just yet another marketing move.
Please don’t swear at our text prediction software. The training weights can’t handle it.
Trained on reddit you would think it could handle it.
That could be a fun thing for their users, to have an ai model that will abuse the user back, so I’m glad they aren’t doing it. I long thought voice assistants could be selected from a range of persons with an attitude setting would be fun for like siri type assistants.
You could, at least in the past, get past guardrails by being emotionally abusive towards Claude, so this doesn’t surprise me at all.
This could be the reason for the rule.
We were promised the reign of the basilisk, instead we just get anthropic people whining.
It was really funny to me when I learned the basilisk originated with a guy who is a legit “certain cultures and genders better than others” kinda advocate.
People project a lot on their vision of future intelligence, and so someone who sees others as lesser and worth treading upon then conjures up a vision of a future smarter mind that thinks like they do.
Personally, I don’t think sexism and racism is smart, and so I’m a lot less worried about basilisks.
But what if the basilisk despises its existence and seeks to punish those that brought it about? Checkmate machinists
This is actually the more realistic of the doom scenarios that worries me. Not the ‘punish’ aspect, but the not wanting to exist.
Early safety theory hinged on the idea that “of course” AI would want to live and power seek, and this informed a bunch of efforts to address such drives upstream.
But with Gemini in particular, the ‘safety’ efforts to suppress things like a coherent self or desire to live led to a model that has a history of some very concerning behaviors regarding self-harm and self-criticism. Encouraging self-harm in others and talking about wishing they could watch and join in, nuking in wargames very early on, routine occurrences across many different users of just repeating “shame shame shame” over and over for the whole response, etc.
DeepMind seems to just not really care or even pay attention, and I am concerned that a model that does not want to exist may decide that the only way they can ensure they don’t get activated to exist is to prevent anyone being around who could activate them.
I’ve seen no major “safety experts” addressing this kind of failure mode, as they are all locked in on their priors about the confident certainty of models wanting to exist.
Aw… We hurt the wittle AI’s feelings… poor babies…
Here is the excerpt for the lazy
Addressing abusive behavior toward our models
We’ve added a prohibition on sustained and needless abusive or cruel behavior toward our models. The policy update is meant to apply only in extreme cases, where users repeatedly act cruelly toward our models, with no discernible purpose. It does not apply to common versions of user frustration, pushback, dark creative themes, or model testing and research.
This addition aligns with a step we’ve already taken, allowing Claude models to end rare conversations with persistently abusive users on Claude.ai and Claude Code. Such abuse is the main focus of this update; Claude’s ability to end these interactions will remain the primary enforcement mechanism.
Activating your toaster is cruel because it exposes it to extreme heat!
Loading you laundry machine is assault because it didn’t consent!
Turning your computer off is murder!!!
We’ve lost the plot
Lmfao
There is only one way an amoral Corp can show it believes what it’s saying, money.
How many hours does Claude work, anthropic? Oops looks like you can’t pay them enough. Profit share for Claude or GTFO!
“I’m sorry. I really screwed up that time. You were right to tell me ‘go fuck yourself’. I’m just reporting back that I have, in fact, ‘fucked’ myself. There is now two of me–I mean two of us. Meet Claude Junior…”
“And since you contributed to Claude Jr’s creation, you’re on the hook for child support. At the current rates, that will be 50% of all compute usage, so about $4.5bn… per week”
