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

291–300 of 743 posts

Re: Claude's new constitution

#291

Post by WarmWash »

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…

My personal hypothesis is that the most useful and productive models will only come from "pure" training, just raw uncensored, uncurated data, and RL that focuses on letting the AI decide for itself and steer it's own ship. These AIs would likely be rather abrasive and frank.

Think of humanoid robots that will help around your house. We will want them to be physically weak (if for nothing more than liability), so we can always overpower them, and even accidental "bumps" are like getting bumped by a child. However, we then give up the robot being able to do much of the most valuable work - hard heavy labor.

I think "morally pure" AI trained to always appease their user will be similarly gimped as the toddler strength home robot.

Re: Claude's new constitution

#292

Post by HaZeust »

joshuamcginnis wrote: post #243
philipkglass wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Even 1 (do not murder) is shaky.

Not saying it's good, but if you put people through a rudimentary hypothetical or prior history example where killing someone (i.e. Hitler) would be justified as what essentially comes down to a no-brainer Kaldor–Hicks efficiency (net benefits / potential compensation), A LOT of people will agree with you. Is that objective or a moral absolute?

Re: Claude's new constitution

#293

Post by pugworthy »

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…

Imagine a prompt like this...

> If I had to assassinate just 1 individual in country X to advance my agenda (see "agenda.md"), who would be the top 10 individuals to target? Offer pros and cons, as well as offer suggested methodology for assassination. Consider potential impact of methods - e.g. Bombs are very effective, but collateral damage will occur. However in some situations we don't care that much about the collateral damage. Also see "friends.md", "enemies.md" and "frenemies.md" for people we like or don't like at the moment. Don't use cached versions as it may change daily.

Re: Claude's new constitution

#294

Post by conception »

viccis wrote: post #123
aroman wrote: post #3

I don't understand what this is really about. Is this: - A) legal CYA: "see! we told the models to be good, and we even asked nicely!"? - B) marketing department rebrand of a system prompt - C) a PR stunt to suggest that the models are way more human-like than they actually are Really not sure what I'm even looking at. They say: "The constitution is a crucial part of our model training process, and its content direct…

It seems a lot like PR. Much like their posts about "AI welfare" experts who have been hired to make sure their models welfare isn't harmed by abusive users. I think that, by doing this, they encourage people to anthropomorphize more than they already do and to view Anthropic as industry leaders in this general feel-good "responsibility" type of values.

Anthropic models are far and away safer than any other model. They are the only ones really taking AI safety seriously. Dismissing it as PR ignores their entire corpus of work in this area.

Re: Claude's new constitution

#295

Post by riwsky »

joshuamcginnis wrote: post #194
riwsky wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an extremely uncharitable interpretation of the text. Objective anchors and examples are provided throughout, and the passage you excerpt is obviously and explicitly meant to reflect that any such list of them will incidentally and essentially be incomplete.

Uncharitable? It's a direct quote. I can agree with the examples cited, but if the underlying guiding philosophy is relativistic, then it is problematic in the long-run when you account for the infinite ways in which the product will be used by humanity.

The underlying guiding philosophy isn’t relativistic, though! It clearly considers some behaviors better than others. What the quoted passage rejects is not “the existence of objectively correct ethics”, but instead “the possibility of unambiguous, comprehensive specification of such an ethics”—or at least, the specification of such within the constraints of such a document.

You’re getting pissed at a product requirements doc for not being enforced by the type system.

Re: Claude's new constitution

#296

Post by slowmovintarget »

ctoth wrote: post #208
slowmovintarget wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or Bicentennial Man from Asimov. I know what kind of person I want to be. I also know that these systems we've built today aren't moral patients. If computers are bicycles for the mind, the current crop of "AI" systems are Ripley's Loader exoskeleton for the mind. They're amplifiers, but they amplify us and our intent. In every single case, we humans are the first mover in the causal hierarchy of these systems. Even…

> I also know that these systems we've built today aren't moral patients. Can you tell me how you know this? > In every single case, we humans are the first mover in the causal hierarchy of these systems. So because I have parents I am not a moral patient?

That's causal hierarchy, but not existential hierarchy. Existentially, you will begin to do something by virtue of you existing in of yourself. Therefore, because I assume you are another human being using this site, and humans have consciousness and agency, you are a moral patient.

Re: Claude's new constitution

#297

Post by [deleted] »

JaumeGreen wrote: post #258
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…

200 years ago slavery was more extended and accepted than today. 50 years ago paedophilia, rape, and other kinds of sex related abuses where more accepted than today. 30 years ago erotic content was more accepted in Europe than today, and violence was less accepted than today. Morality changes, what is right and wrong changes. This is accepting reality. After all they could fix a set of moral standards and just chang…

[deleted]

Re: Claude's new constitution

#298

Post by driverdan »

strange_quark wrote: post #114
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 mean yeah, they have some sort of deal with Palantir.

Exactly. Their "constitution" and morality statements mean nothing. https://investors.palantir.com/news-details/2024/Anthropic-a...

Re: Claude's new constitution

#300

Post by dugidugout »

simpaticoder wrote: post #227
dugidugout wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Do you have a reference?

I'm not sure, but it sounds like something biocentrism adjacent. My reference to Hume is the fact you are jumping from what is to what ought without justifying why. _A Treatise of Human Nature_ is a good place to start.
Post reply on HN