Why do these companies keep naming these systems after real human names?! I thought I'd be pretty safe, but apparently no name is safe from being Alexa'd.
Anthropic's Claude is said to improve on ChatGPT, but still has limitations
11–20 of 58 posts
Re: Anthropic's Claude is said to improve on ChatGPT, but still has limitations
#12Is there any reason to believe that the first open source chat GPT clone won't consume most mindshare, a la stable diffusion?
My theory is that OpenAI is preying on venture capital, and they don't care who wins long term. As long as they're first to get the freshest ideas on the biggest computers, they can secure a large sum of money.
Re: Anthropic's Claude is said to improve on ChatGPT, but still has limitations
#13In a strange twist of events... their massive Series B round was led by SBF "The [$580M] Series B follows the company raising $124 million in a Series A round in 2021. The Series B round was led by Sam Bankman-Fried, CEO of FTX. The round also included participation from Caroline Ellison, Jim McClave, Nishad Singh, Jaan Tallinn, and the Center for Emerging Risk Research (CERR)." https://www.anthropic.com/news/announc…
When someone pays you with stolen funds, aren't you (morally, if not legally) obliged to pay it back to the victims?
If it was a bona fide investment and you are without notice of any wrongdoing - no, I’d say you’re not. Presumably your nefarious investor holds some kind of ownership interest that can be sold by their trustees/liquidators to raise funds. If you are able to do so, it seems like a nice thing to try to help source money to help the people caught out, including by assisting in realising any ownership stake, but that’s a choice, not an obligation.
Edit: to avoid ambiguity, this response is written re morality, not legality.
Re: Anthropic's Claude is said to improve on ChatGPT, but still has limitations
#14Why do these companies keep naming these systems after real human names?! I thought I'd be pretty safe, but apparently no name is safe from being Alexa'd.
Pretty good! This sounds like something a real person would say.
Re: Anthropic's Claude is said to improve on ChatGPT, but still has limitations
#15> Anthropic started with a list of around ten principles that, taken together, formed a sort of “constitution” (hence the name “constitutional AI”). The principles haven’t been made public, but Anthropic says they’re grounded in the concepts of beneficence (maximizing positive impact), nonmaleficence (avoiding giving harmful advice) and autonomy (respecting freedom of choice). This is giving me very strong Asimov's "…
> or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. This has always felt like a gaping hole to me. It seems like to work it would have to a) always make perfect predictions of the future, and b) agree with relevant humans what "harm" is.
If I recall correctly, the whole point was that aligned goals are super hard to do, and that this is what leads to the robots creating a secret robot illuminati that takes over world leadership without anyone realizing they're voting for robots, and then working to protect humans.
Re: Anthropic's Claude is said to improve on ChatGPT, but still has limitations
#16Earlier quoted context omitted.
When someone pays you with stolen funds, aren't you (morally, if not legally) obliged to pay it back to the victims?
If it was a bona fide investment and you are without notice of any wrongdoing - no, I’d say you’re not. Presumably your nefarious investor holds some kind of ownership interest that can be sold by their trustees/liquidators to raise funds. If you are able to do so, it seems like a nice thing to try to help source money to help the people caught out, including by assisting in realising any ownership stake, but that’s…
I think the answer should be yes so that those taking investment should feel pressure to ensure that the money from investors is legitimate. Otherwise, it's going to be "whoops, we didn't know ;)" every time.
Re: Anthropic's Claude is said to improve on ChatGPT, but still has limitations
#17Earlier quoted context omitted.
When someone pays you with stolen funds, aren't you (morally, if not legally) obliged to pay it back to the victims?
If it was a bona fide investment and you are without notice of any wrongdoing - no, I’d say you’re not. Presumably your nefarious investor holds some kind of ownership interest that can be sold by their trustees/liquidators to raise funds. If you are able to do so, it seems like a nice thing to try to help source money to help the people caught out, including by assisting in realising any ownership stake, but that’s…
I’d say you’re not
If the investment was made with stolen funds they can be clawed back.
Re: Anthropic's Claude is said to improve on ChatGPT, but still has limitations
#18Disclaimer: I haven't finished reading the paper [0]
Based on the ability to get around ChatGPT's self-censoring functionality, it's unlikely the model itself was being retrained to avoid certain outputs but there was some other model used to identify inappropriate prompts. The approach from Anthropic instead seems to change the model's latent space to prefer outputs aligned with its constitution.
It's likely that OpenAI will incorporate this approach of using human oversight to train a constitutional supervised model to then train the chat model with ‘RL from AI Feedback’ (RLAIF). OpenAI's current RLHF approach seems related to improving quality of outputs while this is more related to its self-censorship (which didn't work well). I suppose this might be why they haven't released the constitution since it might be serving as some kind of moat (or the principles may be differentiable?). It's still not clear to me how a constitution can impact hallucinations.
Re: Anthropic's Claude is said to improve on ChatGPT, but still has limitations
#19[deleted]
Re: Anthropic's Claude is said to improve on ChatGPT, but still has limitations
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
If it was a bona fide investment and you are without notice of any wrongdoing - no, I’d say you’re not. Presumably your nefarious investor holds some kind of ownership interest that can be sold by their trustees/liquidators to raise funds. If you are able to do so, it seems like a nice thing to try to help source money to help the people caught out, including by assisting in realising any ownership stake, but that’s…
I’d say you’re not If the investment was made with stolen funds they can be clawed back.
[deleted]