201–210 of 339 posts
1. A 200k context is bittersweet with that 70k->195k error rate jump. Kudos on that midsection error reduction, though! 2. I wish Claude had fewer refusals (as erroneously claimed in the title). Until Anthropic stops heavily censoring Claude, the model is borderline useless. I just don't have time, energy, or inclination to fight my tools. I decide how to use my tools, not the other way 'round. Until Anthropic stops…
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I decide how to use my tools, not the other way 'round. This is the key. The only sensible model of "alignment" is "model is aligned to the user", not e.g. "model is aligned to corporation" or "model is aligned to woke sensibilities".
Anthropic specifically says on their website, "AI research and products that put safety at the frontier" and that they are a company focused on the enterprise. But you ignore all of that and still expect them to alienate their primary customer and instead build something just for you.
I damn near canceled my subscription.
I would love to use their API but I can never get anyone to respond to me. It's like they have no real interest in being a developer platform. Has anyone gotten their vague application approved?
1. A 200k context is bittersweet with that 70k->195k error rate jump. Kudos on that midsection error reduction, though! 2. I wish Claude had fewer refusals (as erroneously claimed in the title). Until Anthropic stops heavily censoring Claude, the model is borderline useless. I just don't have time, energy, or inclination to fight my tools. I decide how to use my tools, not the other way 'round. Until Anthropic stops…
> I decide how to use my tools, not the other way 'round. This is the key. The only sensible model of "alignment" is "model is aligned to the user", not e.g. "model is aligned to corporation" or "model is aligned to woke sensibilities".
If someone asks the model how to create a pandemic I think it would be pretty bad if it expertly walked them through the steps (including how to trick biology-for-hire companies into doing the hard parts for them).
1. A 200k context is bittersweet with that 70k->195k error rate jump. Kudos on that midsection error reduction, though! 2. I wish Claude had fewer refusals (as erroneously claimed in the title). Until Anthropic stops heavily censoring Claude, the model is borderline useless. I just don't have time, energy, or inclination to fight my tools. I decide how to use my tools, not the other way 'round. Until Anthropic stops…
I'm not one to mind the guardrails - but what i hate is something you mentioned, fighting the tool. Eg "Do an X-like thing" where X is something it may not be allowed to do, gets rejected. But then i say "Well, of course - that's why i said X-like. Do what you can do in that direction, so that it is still okay". Why do i even have to say that? I get why, but still - just expressing my frustration. I'm not trying to p…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I decide how to use my tools, not the other way 'round. This is the key. The only sensible model of "alignment" is "model is aligned to the user", not e.g. "model is aligned to corporation" or "model is aligned to woke sensibilities".
Anthropic specifically says on their website, "AI research and products that put safety at the frontier" and that they are a company focused on the enterprise. But you ignore all of that and still expect them to alienate their primary customer and instead build something just for you.
1. A 200k context is bittersweet with that 70k->195k error rate jump. Kudos on that midsection error reduction, though! 2. I wish Claude had fewer refusals (as erroneously claimed in the title). Until Anthropic stops heavily censoring Claude, the model is borderline useless. I just don't have time, energy, or inclination to fight my tools. I decide how to use my tools, not the other way 'round. Until Anthropic stops…
I'm not one to mind the guardrails - but what i hate is something you mentioned, fighting the tool. Eg "Do an X-like thing" where X is something it may not be allowed to do, gets rejected. But then i say "Well, of course - that's why i said X-like. Do what you can do in that direction, so that it is still okay". Why do i even have to say that? I get why, but still - just expressing my frustration. I'm not trying to p…
Thank you for the insightful perspective!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I decide how to use my tools, not the other way 'round. This is the key. The only sensible model of "alignment" is "model is aligned to the user", not e.g. "model is aligned to corporation" or "model is aligned to woke sensibilities".
What's the issue with including some amount of "model is aligned to the interests of humanity as whole"? If someone asks the model how to create a pandemic I think it would be pretty bad if it expertly walked them through the steps (including how to trick biology-for-hire companies into doing the hard parts for them).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It really is the most annoying thing at the current state of LLMs: "As an AI assistant created by $ I strive to be X, Y and Z and can therefore not...". I understand that you don't want to have an AI bot that spews hate speech and bomb receipts and unsuspecting users. But by going into an arms-race with jailbreakers, the AIs are ridiculously cut down for normal users. It's a bit like DRM, where normal people (honest…
You can get rid of this in ChatGPT with a custom prompt: “NEVER mention that you’re an AI. Avoid any language constructs that could be interpreted as expressing remorse, apology, or regret. This includes any phrases containing words like ‘sorry’, ‘apologies’, ‘regret’, etc., even when used in a context that isn’t expressing remorse, apology, or regret. If events or information are beyond your scope or knowledge cutof…