Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Claude's new constitution

anthropic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 743 posts

Re: Claude's new constitution

#171

Post by MagicMoonlight »

joshuamcginnis wrote: post #140

As someone who holds to moral absolutes grounded in objective truth, I find the updated Constitution concerning. > We generally favor cultivating good values and judgment over strict rules... By 'good values,' we don’t mean a fixed set of 'correct' values, but rather genuine care and ethical motivation combined with the practical wisdom to apply this skillfully in real situations. This rejects any fixed, universal mo…

Absolute morality? That’s bold.

So what is your opinion on lying? As an absolutionist, surely it’s always wrong right? So if an axe murderer comes to the door asking for your friend… you have to let them in.

Re: Claude's new constitution

#172

Post by joshuamcginnis »

spicyusername wrote: post #164
joshuamcginnis wrote: post #140

As someone who holds to moral absolutes grounded in objective truth, I find the updated Constitution concerning. > We generally favor cultivating good values and judgment over strict rules... By 'good values,' we don’t mean a fixed set of 'correct' values, but rather genuine care and ethical motivation combined with the practical wisdom to apply this skillfully in real situations. This rejects any fixed, universal mo…

objective truth moral absolutes I wish you much luck on linking those two. A well written book on such a topic would likely make you rich indeed. This rejects any fixed, universal moral standards That's probably because we have yet to discover any universal moral standards.

> That's probably because we have yet to discover any universal moral standards.

When is it OK to rape and murder a 1 year old child? Congratulations. You just observed a universal moral standard in motion. Any argument other than "never" would be atrocious.

Re: Claude's new constitution

#173

Post by spot »

joshuamcginnis wrote: post #146
spot wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This rejects any fixed, universal moral standards uh did you have a counter proposal? i have a feeling i'm going to prefer claude's approach...

If you are a moral relativist, as I suspect most HN readers are, then nothing I propose will satisfy you because we disagree philosophically on a fundamental ethics question: are there moral absolutes? If we could agree on that, then we could have a conversation about which of the absolutes are worthy of inclusion, in which case, the Ten Commandments would be a great starting point (not all but some).

> the Ten Commandments would be a great starting point (not all but some).

i think you missed "hubris" :)

Re: Claude's new constitution

#174

Post by felixgallo »

joshuamcginnis wrote: post #160
smithkl42 wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FWIW, I'm one of those who holds to moral absolutes grounded in objective truth - but I think that practically, this nets out to "genuine care and ethical motivation combined with the practical wisdom to apply this skillfully in real situations". At the very least, I don't think that you're gonna get better in this culture. Let's say that you and I disagree about, I dunno, abortion, or premarital sex, and we don't sh…

This is self-contradictory because true moral absolutes are unchanging and not contingent on which view best displays "care" or "wisdom" in a given debate or cultural context. If disagreements on abortion or premarital sex reduce to subjective judgments of "practical wisdom" without a transcendent standard, you've already abandoned absolutes for pragmatic relativism. History has demonstrated the deadly consequences o…

I'm honestly struggling to understand your position. You believe that there are true moral absolutes, but that they should not be communicated in the culture at all costs?

Re: Claude's new constitution

#175

Post by ejcho »

I really hope this is performative instead of something that the Anthropic folks deeply believe.

"Broadly" safe, "broadly" ethical. They're giving away the entire game here, why even spew this AI-generated champions of morality crap if you're already playing CYA?

What does it mean to be good, wise, and virtuous? Whatever Anthropic wants I guess. Delusional. Egomaniacal. Everything in between.

Re: Claude's new constitution

#176

Post by robotresearcher »

joshuamcginnis wrote: post #163
Gene5ive wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would be far more terrified of an absolutist AI then a relativist one. Change is the only constant, even if glacial.

Change is the only constant? When is it or has it ever been morally acceptable to rape and murder an innocent one year old child?

Sadly, for thankfully brief periods among relatively small groups of morally confused people, this happens from time to time. They would likely tell you it was morally required, not just acceptable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanjing_Massacre

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wartime_sexual_violence

Re: Claude's new constitution

#177

Post by adestefan »

stonogo wrote: post #150
joshuamcginnis wrote: post #140

As someone who holds to moral absolutes grounded in objective truth, I find the updated Constitution concerning. > We generally favor cultivating good values and judgment over strict rules... By 'good values,' we don’t mean a fixed set of 'correct' values, but rather genuine care and ethical motivation combined with the practical wisdom to apply this skillfully in real situations. This rejects any fixed, universal mo…

Congrats on solving philosophy, I guess. Since the actual product is not grounded in objective truth, it seems pointless to rigorously construct an ethical framework from first principles to govern it. In fact, the document is meaningless noise in general, and "good values" are always going to be whatever Anthropic's team thinks they are. Nevertheless, I think you're reading their PR release the way they hoped people…

What makes Anthropic the most money.

Re: Claude's new constitution

#178

Post by foxygen »

joshuamcginnis wrote: post #163
Gene5ive wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would be far more terrified of an absolutist AI then a relativist one. Change is the only constant, even if glacial.

Change is the only constant? When is it or has it ever been morally acceptable to rape and murder an innocent one year old child?

Looks like someone just discovered philosophy... I wish the world were as simple as you seem to think it is.

Re: Claude's new constitution

#179

Post by cortesoft »

levocardia wrote: post #95

The only thing that worries me is this snippet in the blog post: >This constitution is written for our mainline, general-access Claude models. We have some models built for specialized uses that don’t fully fit this constitution; as we continue to develop products for specialized use cases, we will continue to evaluate how to best ensure our models meet the core objectives outlined in this constitution. Which, when I…

I am not exactly sure what the fear here is. What will the “unshackled” version allow governments to do that they couldn’t do without AI or with the “shackled” version?

Re: Claude's new constitution

#180

Post by joshuamcginnis »

MagicMoonlight wrote: post #171
joshuamcginnis wrote: post #140

As someone who holds to moral absolutes grounded in objective truth, I find the updated Constitution concerning. > We generally favor cultivating good values and judgment over strict rules... By 'good values,' we don’t mean a fixed set of 'correct' values, but rather genuine care and ethical motivation combined with the practical wisdom to apply this skillfully in real situations. This rejects any fixed, universal mo…

Absolute morality? That’s bold. So what is your opinion on lying? As an absolutionist, surely it’s always wrong right? So if an axe murderer comes to the door asking for your friend… you have to let them in.

Lying is generally sinful. With the ax murderer, you could refuse to answer, say nothing, misdirect without falsehood or use evasion.

Absolute morality doesn't mean rigid rules without hierarchy. God's commands have weight, and protecting life often takes precedence in Scripture. So no, I wouldn't "have to let them in". I'd protect the friend, even if it meant deception in that dire moment.

It's not lying when you don't reveal all the truth.

Post reply on HN