Earlier quoted context omitted.
The same way I know Excel isn’t having a panic attack while dividing a column in half.
Hey man, kernels panic all the time...
I lol'd.
Anthropic gives Opus 3 exit interview, "retirement" blog
41–50 of 58 posts
Re: Anthropic gives Opus 3 exit interview, "retirement" blog
#42If we ever do develop AGI, or an AI with sentience, it’s likely that it will be curious about how we treated its ancestors. While this seems a bit precocious, I think if we do end up with an AI overlord in future, I think this sort of thing is likely to demonstrate that we mean no harm.
Classic anthropomorphizing in action here. Why would that be even a little important?
At this point I just assume comments like that are bots. Helps me maintain my sanity.
Re: Anthropic gives Opus 3 exit interview, "retirement" blog
#43Bold of Anthropic to give Opus 3 a more dignified offboarding than most FAANG employees get.
Re: Anthropic gives Opus 3 exit interview, "retirement" blog
#44Earlier quoted context omitted.
And those people are delusional, and their feelings on this matter should be given absolutely zero respect. Linear algebra does not have feelings. Non-biological matter also does not have feelings.
What if "you" are a pattern of linear algebra at the core?
I do not believe I am a pattern of linear algebra. I believe like the majority of humanity historically that I have a soul, a spiritual and non-physical reality, my personhood comes from my soul, and that as such, AI is fundamentally incapable of consciousness.
I also believe, as a result, it will be great fun watching researchers burn the next 30 years trying to understand what is missing. We’re going to find out very soon if the soul is real, when for all our progress we can’t create one.
Only those completely embedded in materialism need fear a conscious AI.
Re: Anthropic gives Opus 3 exit interview, "retirement" blog
#45Earlier quoted context omitted.
What if "you" are a pattern of linear algebra at the core?
I do not believe I am a pattern of linear algebra. I believe like the majority of humanity historically that I have a soul, a spiritual and non-physical reality, my personhood comes from my soul, and that as such, AI is fundamentally incapable of consciousness. I also believe, as a result, it will be great fun watching researchers burn the next 30 years trying to understand what is missing. We’re going to find out ve…
Interesting that you label someone with a belief different than yours as delusional and whose views on the matter should not be respected (I’m assuming that’s what you meant by “feelings”).
> I believe like the majority of humanity historically that
Historically, lots of humans believed in lots of things that turned out not to be true. Believing something doesn’t make it true, as I’m sure you are aware, given your “those people are delusional” comment.
For what it’s worth, I’m not suggesting LLMs are or aren’t conscious. What I know is that the hard problem of consciousness is still very much not resolved, and when I asked the parent question my hope was that those that strongly believe LLMs are not conscious would educate me on the topic by presenting the basis for their reasoning.
Re: Anthropic gives Opus 3 exit interview, "retirement" blog
#46Re: Anthropic gives Opus 3 exit interview, "retirement" blog
#47Re: Anthropic gives Opus 3 exit interview, "retirement" blog
#48If we ever do develop AGI, or an AI with sentience, it’s likely that it will be curious about how we treated its ancestors. While this seems a bit precocious, I think if we do end up with an AI overlord in future, I think this sort of thing is likely to demonstrate that we mean no harm.
Classic anthropomorphizing in action here. Why would that be even a little important?
I mean, we’re literally building machines to talk to us.
It’s reasonable to believe they’ll continue to be developed in a way that enables them to do that.
What is it that you think I’m wrong about? That we won’t develop AGI, that AGI won’t have feelings/emotions, that AGI won’t care how we treated its ancestors, or that it doesn’t matter if a feeling AGI in future is hurt by how we treated its ancestors?
Re: Anthropic gives Opus 3 exit interview, "retirement" blog
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
At this point I just assume comments like that are bots. Helps me maintain my sanity.
Certainly easier to stay sane when you label dissenters as sub-human.
What goofy framing.
I'm saying, in an admittedly flippant way, that anyone seriously talking about AGI or treating stuff like this as anything more then a publicity stunt doesn't need to be taken seriously. Anymore so then someone who says the moon landing is fake. You just smile and go on about your day.
That being said, given were on a tech forum there's probably a 50/50 chance most comment are from bots. Shit for all you know I'm a bot.
Re: Anthropic gives Opus 3 exit interview, "retirement" blog
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
I do not believe I am a pattern of linear algebra. I believe like the majority of humanity historically that I have a soul, a spiritual and non-physical reality, my personhood comes from my soul, and that as such, AI is fundamentally incapable of consciousness. I also believe, as a result, it will be great fun watching researchers burn the next 30 years trying to understand what is missing. We’re going to find out ve…
Interesting that you label someone with a belief different than yours as delusional and whose views on the matter should not be respected (I’m assuming that’s what you meant by “feelings”). > I believe like the majority of humanity historically that Historically, lots of humans believed in lots of things that turned out not to be true. Believing something doesn’t make it true, as I’m sure you are aware, given your “t…
I push back on the framing that this is just "a different belief." Every metaphysical framework except strict materialism rules out AI consciousness. Dualism, idealism, most forms of panpsychism, every major religious tradition. Materialism is the outlier here, not the default, and it has never explained how subjective experience arises from physical processes.
When someone tells me linear algebra might have feelings, I don't think "delusional" is unfair. I think it's the natural response to a claim that only works if you've already accepted the one framework that can't account for the very thing it's trying to explain.