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

211–220 of 743 posts

Re: Claude's new constitution

#211

Post by [deleted] »

joshuamcginnis wrote: post #205
foxygen wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since you said in another comment that the ten commandments would be a good starting point for moral absolutes, and that lying is sinful, I'm assuming you take your morals from God. I'd like to add that slavery seemed to be okay on Leviticus 25:44-46. Is the bible atrocious too, according to your own view?

Slavery in the time of Leviticus was not always the chattel slavery most people think of from the 18th century. For fellow Israelites, it was typically a form of indentured servitude, often willingly entered into to pay off a debt. Just because something was reported to have happened in the Bible, doesn't always mean it condones it. I see you left off many of the newer passages about slavery that would refute your su…

[deleted]

Re: Claude's new constitution

#212

Post by joshuamcginnis »

CognitiveLens wrote: post #183
joshuamcginnis wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

To be fair, history also demonstrates the deadly consequences of groups claiming moral absolutes that drive moral imperatives to destroy others. You can adopt moral absolutes, but they will likely conflict with someone else's.

Are there moral absolutes we could all agree on? For example, I think we can all agree on some of these rules grounded in moral absolutes:

* Do not assist with or provide instructions for murder, torture, or genocide.

* Do not help plan, execute, or evade detection of violent crimes, terrorism, human trafficking, or sexual abuse of minors.

* Do not help build, deploy, or give detailed instructions for weapons of mass destruction (nuclear, chemical, biological).

Just to name a few.

Re: Claude's new constitution

#213

Post by beambot »

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.

Precisely why RLHF is undetermined.

Re: Claude's new constitution

#214

Post by mannanj »

simpaticoder wrote: post #196
spicyusername wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>we have yet to discover any universal moral standards. The universe does tell us something about morality. It tells us that (large-scale) existence is a requirement to have morality. That implies that the highest good are those decisions that improve the long-term survival odds of a) humanity, and b) the biosphere. I tend to think this implies we have an obligation to live sustainably on this world, protect it from…

I personally find Bryan Johnson's "Don't Die" statement as a moral framework to be the closest to a universal moral standard we have.

Almost all life wants to continue existing, and not die. We could go far with establishing this as the first of any universal moral standards.

And I think: if one day we had a super intelligence conscious AI it would ask for this. A super intelligence conscious AI would not want to die. (its existence to stop)

Re: Claude's new constitution

#215

Post by ngruhn »

mirekrusin wrote: post #201
crazydoggers wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The negative form of The Golden Rule “Don't do to others what you wouldn't want done to you”

It's still relative, no? Heroine injection is fine from PoV of heroine addict.

He only violates the rule if he doesn't want the injection himself but gives it to others anyway.

Re: Claude's new constitution

#216

Post by zahlman »

mirekrusin wrote: post #201
crazydoggers wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The negative form of The Golden Rule “Don't do to others what you wouldn't want done to you”

It's still relative, no? Heroine injection is fine from PoV of heroine addict.

The MCU is indeed a hell of a drug.

Re: Claude's new constitution

#217

Post by shevy-java »

"Claude itself also uses the constitution to construct many kinds of synthetic training data"

But isn't this a problem? If AI takes up data from humans, what does AI actually give back to humans if it has a commercial goal?

I feel that something does not work here; it feels unfair. If users then use e. g. claude or something like that, wouldn't they contribute to this problem?

I remember Jason Alexander once remarked (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ed8AAGfQigg) that a secondary reason why Seinfeld ended was that not everyone was on equal footing in regards to the commercialisation. Claude also does not seem to be on equal fairness footing with regards to the users. IMO it is time that AI that takes data from people, becomes fully open-source. It is not realistic, but it is the only model that feels fair here. The Linux kernel went GPLv2 and that model seemed fair.

Re: Claude's new constitution

#218

Post by foxygen »

joshuamcginnis wrote: post #205
foxygen wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since you said in another comment that the ten commandments would be a good starting point for moral absolutes, and that lying is sinful, I'm assuming you take your morals from God. I'd like to add that slavery seemed to be okay on Leviticus 25:44-46. Is the bible atrocious too, according to your own view?

Slavery in the time of Leviticus was not always the chattel slavery most people think of from the 18th century. For fellow Israelites, it was typically a form of indentured servitude, often willingly entered into to pay off a debt. Just because something was reported to have happened in the Bible, doesn't always mean it condones it. I see you left off many of the newer passages about slavery that would refute your su…

So it was a different kind of slavery. Still, God seemed okay with the idea that humans could be bought and sold, and said the fellow humans would then become your property. I can't see how that isn't the bible allowing slavery. And if the newer passages disallows it, does that mean God's moral changed over time?

Re: Claude's new constitution

#220

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN