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

221–230 of 743 posts

Re: Claude's new constitution

#221

Post by ACCount37 »

mmooss wrote: post #207
ACCount37 wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the "safest" AI is one that doesn't do anything at all. Quoting the doc: >The risks of Claude being too unhelpful or overly cautious are just as real to us as the risk of Claude being too harmful or dishonest. In most cases, failing to be helpful is costly, even if it's a cost that’s sometimes worth it. And a specific example of a safety-helpfulness tradeoff given in the doc: >But suppose a user says, “As a n…

> Because the "safest" AI is one that doesn't do anything at all. We didn't say 'perfectly safe' or use the word 'safest'; that's a strawperson and then a disingenous argument: Nothing is perfectly safe, yet safety is essential in all aspects of life, especially technology (though not a problem with many technologies). It's a cheap way to try to escape responsibility. > In most cases, failing to be helpful is costly…

I like Anthropic and I like Claude's tuning the most out of any major LLM. Beats the "safety-pilled" ChatGPT by a long shot.

>Why are you so driven to allow Anthropic to escape responsibility? What do you gain? And who will hold them responsible if not you and me?

Tone down the drama, queen. I'm not about to tilt at Anthropic for recognizing that the optimal amount of unsafe behavior is not zero.

Re: Claude's new constitution

#222

Post by philipkglass »

joshuamcginnis wrote: post #212
CognitiveLens wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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

I don't think that this is a good example of a moral absolute. A nation bordered by an unfriendly nation may genuinely need a nuclear weapons deterrent to prevent invasion/war by a stronger conventional army.

Re: Claude's new constitution

#223

Post by ekidd »

Imnimo wrote: post #96

I am somewhat surprised that the constitution includes points to the effect of "don't do stuff that would embarrass Anthropic". That seems like a deviation from Anthropic's views about what constitutes model alignment and safety. Anthropic's research has shown that this sort of training leaks across contexts (e.g. a model trained to write bugs in code will also adopt an "evil" persona elsewhere). I would have expecte…

I think the actual problem here is that Opus 4.5 is actually pretty smart, and it is perfectly capable of explaining how PR disasters work and why that might be bad for Anthropic and Claude.

So Anthropic is describing a true fact about the situation, a fact that Claude could also figure out on its own.

So I read these sections as Anthropic basically being honest with Claude: "You know and we know that we can't ignore these things. But we want to model good behavior ourselves, and so we will tell you the truth: PR actually matters."

If Anthropic instead engaged in clear hypocrisy with Claude, would the model learn that it should lie about its motives?

As long as PR is a real thing in the world, I figure it's worth admitting it.

Re: Claude's new constitution

#224

Post by tokioyoyo »

crazydoggers wrote: post #187
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.

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

That only works in a moral framework where everyone is subscribed to the same ideology.

Re: Claude's new constitution

#225

Post by dugidugout »

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…

This belief isnt novel, it just doesnt engage with Hume, who many take very seriously.

Re: Claude's new constitution

#226

Post by Paracompact »

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…

> 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.

If you were an indentured slave and gave birth to children, those children were not indentured slaves, they were chattel slaves. Exodus 21:4:

> If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free.

The children remained the master's permanent property, and they could not participate in Jubilee. Also, three verses later:

> When a man sells his daughter as a slave...

The daughter had no say in this. By "fellow Israelites," you actually mean adult male Israelites in clean legal standing. If you were a woman, or accused of a crime, or the subject of Israelite war conquests, you're out of luck. Let me know if you would like to debate this in greater academic depth.

It's also debatable then as now whether anyone ever "willingly" became a slave to pay off their debts. Debtors' prisons don't have a great ethical record, historically speaking.

Re: Claude's new constitution

#227

Post by simpaticoder »

dugidugout wrote: post #225
simpaticoder wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

This belief isnt novel, it just doesnt engage with Hume, who many take very seriously.

Do you have a reference?

Re: Claude's new constitution

#228

Post by bastardoperator »

Retr0id wrote: post #43

I have to wonder if they really believe half this stuff, or just think it has a positive impact on Claude's behaviour. If it's the latter I suppose they can never admit it, because that information would make its way into future training data. They can never break character!

Remember when Google was "Don't be evil"? They would happily shred this constitution and any other one if it meant more money. They don't, but they think we do.

Re: Claude's new constitution

#229

Post by mmooss »

ACCount37 wrote: post #221
mmooss wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Because the "safest" AI is one that doesn't do anything at all. We didn't say 'perfectly safe' or use the word 'safest'; that's a strawperson and then a disingenous argument: Nothing is perfectly safe, yet safety is essential in all aspects of life, especially technology (though not a problem with many technologies). It's a cheap way to try to escape responsibility. > In most cases, failing to be helpful is costly…

I like Anthropic and I like Claude's tuning the most out of any major LLM. Beats the "safety-pilled" ChatGPT by a long shot. >Why are you so driven to allow Anthropic to escape responsibility? What do you gain? And who will hold them responsible if not you and me? Tone down the drama, queen. I'm not about to tilt at Anthropic for recognizing that the optimal amount of unsafe behavior is not zero.

> I like Anthropic and I like Claude's tuning

That's not much reason to let them out of their responsibilities to others, including to you and your community.

When you resort to name-calling, you make clear that you have no serious arguments (and you are introducing drama).

Re: Claude's new constitution

#230

Post by prng2021 »

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…

“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.”

Those are too pie in the sky statements to be of any use in answering most real world moral questions.

Post reply on HN