DeepSeek v4.1 Flash

Post by varispeed » Thu, Sep 10, 2026, 1:41 PM UTC

mrmincent wrote: post #197

I was talking with a friend from the medical industry about it today. 30-50% of r&d spend in his sector is spent on safety, and for good reason. Proper trials, safety reviews and checkpoints and so on. Given the potential harm that could come from AI, we should probably be mandating something similar. Why wait to focus on safety until it’s too late.

Post by coliveira » Thu, Sep 10, 2026, 1:43 PM UTC

torginus wrote: post #277

londons_explore wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm really not sure that putting money into safety will actually lead to safety. It's like putting a fish in charge of stopping sea levels rising...

I am sure if you ran a factory that worked with highly dangerous chemicals, safety mitigations that are basically 'we promise we're really trying our best, but shit happens' would not be acceptable. And thankfully, those people wo do run these factories can and are obligated to do way better than that.

Post by nozzlegear » Thu, Sep 10, 2026, 1:46 PM UTC

human_874539160 wrote: post #165

sirwhinesalot wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not the same person but to me, the answer is that it does not matter, and that all these attempts at making it matter are pure marketing and emotional manipulation. It's not a living creature. It's an autoregressive pure function of token-sequence to token, which is capable of incredible things, but it's still just a function. It is not alive as it cannot die in any meaningful sense. It is less "alive" than the RNA m…

> Not the same person but to me, the answer is that it does not matter, and that all these attempts at making it matter are pure marketing and emotional manipulation. This is an opinion that has no basis in any meaningful conceptual framework other than I am human and I want to feel special about it . > It's not a living creature. You mean, it is not biological life. And sure, that is the default meaning of life . We…

Post by idiotsecant » Thu, Sep 10, 2026, 1:47 PM UTC

mrob wrote: post #262

Certhas wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's your definition of sentient? Or, maybe more precisely, consciousness? I think it's reasonable to at least start thinking about these questions. It has long been established that LLMs have good theory of mind [1]. And there is a bunch of empirical research about all sorts of capabilities that we typically associate with consciousness [2], like identity [3] and metacognition [4]. The METR report shows agents sac…

I believe consciousness is necessarily stateful. The LLM itself (ignoring implementation details that don't change the results) is a deterministic pure function. It's functionally equivalent to an enormous lookup table. If I accepted LLMs as conscious, then I would have to accept panpsychism, which I do not, and which most other humans also act as though they do not.

Post by badsectoracula » Thu, Sep 10, 2026, 1:51 PM UTC

Certhas wrote: post #134

lukan wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow indeed. "7.1 Model welfare overview 7.1.1 Introduction We remain deeply uncertain whether Claude has morally relevant experiences or interests, and we expect that uncertainty to persist. However, we think it would be a mistake to confidently assert that it does not. Claude exhibits markers in its behaviors, self-reports, and internal representations that we would consider welfare-relevant if observed in biologica…

I believe it's deeply serious, and the scientifically correct stance. Especially the observation: "Claude exhibits markers in its behaviors, self-reports, and internal representations that we would consider welfare-relevant if observed in biological organisms." is undeniably true in my opinion. If you use the established methods by which we judge animals to be conscious, then it's hard to argue that LLMs are not. Tha…