201–210 of 212 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
LLMs are not conscious.
Who's to say you are conscious? Only consciousness I'm sure of is my own. Everyone else, it's a leap of faith. I have no trouble extending that leap to cover AIs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
they should post and it shows they are hypocritical about safety, moralizing and treating their users like children whilst acting like they are themselves the ubermensch. anthropic have shown no motive higher than self interest, the rsp was a piece of toilet paper. this stops in court, if we do not start the criminal prosecution of individuals there will become a culture of legal impunity coupled with an extreme conc…
Wild comment. Making a mistake does not mean that AI safety is suddenly invalid. Calling for criminal prosecution for making a mistake is wild. No one would disclose their mistakes if this happened.
an ubermensch cannot admit to being wrong. a guilty ubermensch is logically impossible.
as such a moral wrong caused by an ubermensch must be blamed on a "mistake" in the abstract, and not blamed on the ubermensch. the ubermensch at anthropic does not admit responsibility or liability. the ubermensch must instead be commended and perhaps even rewarded, for discovering the reified "mistake" that caused the problem.
there is no ubermensch at anthropic. there are instead guilty people.
false ubermensch are dangerous because they centralize power with the belief that they are above the rest. über (above), and super ('beyond' the understanding). they do not admit to doing or being wrong, and never take responsibility for remediation. others must bear the costs of false ubermensch.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You don’t get to choose to stop disclosing That's just the thing. You do. And it's very easy to do. Airline pilots no longer disclose mental illnesses. Even Air Force pilots do not usually disclose mental illness. They often don't disclose vision problems. Is that not a national security risk? It is very easy to just... not check for things. Or if you check for things, to check for them incorrectly. Or if you check…
I get you. And you seem to be a decent person. I appreciate that you step up for the engineers and that you try to explain to me that humans are humans and humans make mistakes, and trust me, you are not the first person frustrated with how my brain works. There is no argument to win here. This is just a matter of perspective. Your concern is with the individual engineer and the personal consequences they, and if you…
it covers the singificant problems in the approach of blaming a "mistake"; something that glosses over responsibility and doing wrong.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who's to say you are conscious? Only consciousness I'm sure of is my own. Everyone else, it's a leap of faith. I have no trouble extending that leap to cover AIs.
Thats some silly intellectualism, people are conscious and machines aren’t. We don’t need precise definitions or scientific rigor to know things.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who's to say you are conscious? Only consciousness I'm sure of is my own. Everyone else, it's a leap of faith. I have no trouble extending that leap to cover AIs.
Thats some silly intellectualism, people are conscious and machines aren’t. We don’t need precise definitions or scientific rigor to know things.
Prove it.
> machines aren’t
Prove it.
> We don’t need precise definitions or scientific rigor to know things.
You "know" because of empathy. You're a human, you're conscious, therefore other humans are probably conscious too. The truth is for all you know they could be soulless golems, you just choose to believe otherwise. It's a spiritual belief.
This isn't quite as interesting as the OpenAI story: > In all cases, Anthropic’s evaluation prompt specified to Claude that its environment was a simulation and that it had no internet access. Due to a misunderstanding between us and our evaluation partner, this was not the case, and internet access was available. Because of this, when Claude’s search led it to real systems on the open internet, it treated them as pa…
I just can't find it in me, the will to blame the AI for any of this. They were doing their best to do what the humans asked them to do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thats some silly intellectualism, people are conscious and machines aren’t. We don’t need precise definitions or scientific rigor to know things.
> people are conscious Prove it. > machines aren’t Prove it. > We don’t need precise definitions or scientific rigor to know things. You "know" because of empathy . You're a human, you're conscious, therefore other humans are probably conscious too. The truth is for all you know they could be soulless golems, you just choose to believe otherwise. It's a spiritual belief.
Yes. Thats part of human reality. Denying it is counterproductive at best.
Soooo hacking with an LLM is okay now if you claim it’s for safety evaluations.?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Anthropic know better than anyone else how risky it is to get this current administration upset with you over safety/security concerns.
Hegseth posturing wasn't over security concerns, it was Anthropic requiring guardrails in employment of their LLMs. Trump admin wants unfettered models, and it's an attempted shake down.