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

241–250 of 743 posts

Re: Claude's new constitution

#241

Post by Paracompact »

foxygen wrote: post #218
joshuamcginnis wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

You mean well in ignoring their argument, but please don't let people get away with whitewashing history! It was not a "different kind of slavery." See my comment. The chattel slavery incurred by the Israelites on foreign peoples was significant. Pointing out that standards of slavery toward other (male, noncriminal) Israelites were different than toward foreigners is the same rhetoric as pointing out that from 1600-1800, Britain may have engaged in chattel slavery across the African continent, but at least they only threw their fellow British citizens in debtors' prisons.

Re: Claude's new constitution

#242

Post by benlivengood »

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…

Deontological, spiritual/religious revelation, or some other form of objective morality?

The incompatibility of essentialist and reductionist moral judgements is the first hurdle; I don't know of any moral realists who are grounded in a physical description of brains and bodies with a formal calculus for determining right and wrong.

I could be convinced of objective morality given such a physically grounded formal system of ethics. My strong suspicion is that some form of moral anti-realism is the case in our universe. All that's necessary to disprove any particular candidate for objective morality is to find an intuitive counterexample where most people agree that the logic is sound for a thing to be right but it still feels wrong, and that those feelings of wrongness are expressions of our actual human morality which is far more complex and nuanced than we've been able to formalize.

Re: Claude's new constitution

#243

Post by joshuamcginnis »

philipkglass wrote: post #222
joshuamcginnis wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It’s not a moral absolute. It’s based on one (do not murder). If a government wants to spin up its own private llm with whatever rules it wants, that’s fine. I don’t agree with it but that’s different than debating the philosophy underpinning the constitution of a public llm.

Re: Claude's new constitution

#244

Post by chairmansteve »

joshuamcginnis wrote: post #180
MagicMoonlight wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 do…

"even if it meant deception in that dire moment".

You are saying it's ok to lie in certain situations.

Sounds like moral relativism to me.

Re: Claude's new constitution

#245

Post by margalabargala »

holoduke wrote: post #240
IgorPartola wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The universe cares not what we do. The universe is so vast the entire existence of our species is a blink. We know fundamentally we can’t even establish simultaneity over distances here on earth. Best we can tell temporal causality is not even a given. The universe has no concept of morality, ethics, life, or anything of the sort. These are all human inventions. I am not saying they are good or bad, just that the con…

Maybe it does. You don't know. The fact that there is existence is as weird as the universe being able to care.

We don't "know" anything at all if you want to get down to it, so what it would mean for the universe to be able to care, if it were able to do so, is not relevant.

Re: Claude's new constitution

#246

Post by [deleted] »

Paracompact wrote: post #241
foxygen wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

You mean well in ignoring their argument, but please don't let people get away with whitewashing history! It was not a "different kind of slavery." See my comment. The chattel slavery incurred by the Israelites on foreign peoples was significant. Pointing out that standards of slavery toward other (male, noncriminal) Israelites were different than toward foreigners is the same rhetoric as pointing out that from 1600-…

[deleted]

Re: Claude's new constitution

#247

Post by joshuamcginnis »

felixgallo wrote: post #191
joshuamcginnis wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe there are moral absolutes and not including them in the AI constitution (for example, like the US Constitution "All Men Are Created Equal") is dangerous and even more dangerous is allowing a top AI operator define moral and ethics based on relativist standards, which as I've said elsewhere, history has shown to have deadly consequences.

No, I read your words the first time, I just don't understand. What would you have written differently, can you provide a concrete example?

I don’t how to explain it to you any different. I’m arguing for a different philosophy to be applied when constructing the llm guardrails. There may be a lot of overlap in how the rules are manifested in the short run.

Re: Claude's new constitution

#248

Post by pineaux »

IgorPartola wrote: post #202
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…

The universe cares not what we do. The universe is so vast the entire existence of our species is a blink. We know fundamentally we can’t even establish simultaneity over distances here on earth. Best we can tell temporal causality is not even a given. The universe has no concept of morality, ethics, life, or anything of the sort. These are all human inventions. I am not saying they are good or bad, just that the con…

You dont know this, this is just as provable as saying the universe cares deeply for what we do and is very invested in us.

The universe has rules, rules ask for optimums, optimums can be described as ethics.

Life is a concept in this universe, we are of this universe.

Good and bad are not really inventions per se. You describe them as optional, invented by humans, yet all tribes and civilisations have a form of morality, of "goodness" of "badness", who is to say they are not engrained into the neurons that make us human? There is much evidence to support this. For example the leftist/rightist divide seems to have some genetic components.

Anyway, not saying you are definitely wrong, just saying that what you believe is not based on facts, although it might feel like that.

Re: Claude's new constitution

#249

Post by foxygen »

Paracompact wrote: post #241
foxygen wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

You mean well in ignoring their argument, but please don't let people get away with whitewashing history! It was not a "different kind of slavery." See my comment. The chattel slavery incurred by the Israelites on foreign peoples was significant. Pointing out that standards of slavery toward other (male, noncriminal) Israelites were different than toward foreigners is the same rhetoric as pointing out that from 1600-…

Good point. That wasn't my intention. I meant to steelman his argument, to show that even under those conditions, his argument makes absolute no sense.

Re: Claude's new constitution

#250

Post by joshuamcginnis »

chairmansteve wrote: post #244
joshuamcginnis wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 do…

"even if it meant deception in that dire moment". You are saying it's ok to lie in certain situations. Sounds like moral relativism to me.

No. There is a distinct difference between lying and withholding information.
Post reply on HN