11–20 of 161 posts
Oh wow. My respect for Anthropic just dropped to zero; I had no idea they were entertaining ideas this stupid. In full agreement with OP; there is just about no justifiable basis to begin to ascribe consciousness to these things in this way. Can't think of a better use for the word "dehumanizing."
> The issue is, if we push moral considerations for algorithms, we will not end up with a higher regard to human welfare. We will lower our regard for other humans. When we see other humans not as ends in themselves with inherent dignity, we get problems. When we liken them to animals or tools to be used, we will exploit and abuse them.
> With model welfare, we might not explicitly say that a certain group of people is subhuman. However, the implication is clear: LLMs are basically the same as humans. Consciousness on a different substrate. Or coming from the other way, human consciousness is nothing but an algorithm running on our brains, somehow.
We do not push moral considerations for algorithms like a sort or a search, do we? Or bacteria, which live. One has to be more precise; there is a qualitative difference. The author should have elaborated on what qualities (s)he thinks confers rights. Is it the capacity for reasoning, possession of consciousness, to feel pain, or a desire to live? This is the crux of the matter. Once that is settled, it is a simpler matter to decide if computers can possess these qualities, and ergo qualify for the same rights as humans. Or maybe it is not so simple since computers can be perfectly replicated and never have to die? Make an argument!
Second, why would conferring these rights to a computer lessen our regard for humans? And what is wrong with animals, anyway? If we treat them poorly, that's on us, not them. The way I read it, if we are likening computers to animals, we should be treating them better!
To the skeptics in this discussion: what are you going to say when you are confronted with walking, talking robots that argue that they have rights? It could be your local robo-cop, or robo soldier:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/GwgV18R-CHg
I think this is going to become reality within our lifetimes and we'd do well not to dismiss the question.
Oh wow. My respect for Anthropic just dropped to zero; I had no idea they were entertaining ideas this stupid. In full agreement with OP; there is just about no justifiable basis to begin to ascribe consciousness to these things in this way. Can't think of a better use for the word "dehumanizing."
"As well as misalignment concerns, the increasing capabilities of frontier AI models—their sophisticated planning, reasoning, agency, memory, social interaction, and more—raise questions about their potential experiences and welfare26. We are deeply uncertain about whether models now or in the future might deserve moral consideration, and about how we would know if they did. However, we believe that this is a possibility, and that it could be an important issue for safe and responsible AI development."
chapter 5 from system card as linked from article: https://www-cdn.anthropic.com/6be99a52cb68eb70eb9572b4cafad1...
Humans do care about welfare of inanimate objects (stuffed animals for example) so maybe this is meant to get in front of that inevitable attitude of the users.
I know everyone has different opinions on LLM safety/ethics and I respect that. However for me this “AI Welfare” indicates that Anthropic is lead by lunatics and that’s more scary. You have to be pretty crazy to worry the code running on GPUs has “feelings”.
Tech CEOs are disassociated loons.
Zero obligation in life to do anything for themselves. Just stare at the geometry of reality and emit some empty thought speak.
Just the new church leadership; we all serve them like mommy has since childhood.
These people are absolutely pathetic and entitled children coddled by wealth.
Those math professors are downright barbaric with their complete disregard for the welfare of the numbers.
Oh wow. My respect for Anthropic just dropped to zero; I had no idea they were entertaining ideas this stupid. In full agreement with OP; there is just about no justifiable basis to begin to ascribe consciousness to these things in this way. Can't think of a better use for the word "dehumanizing."
We already exploit and abuse humans. I've been exploited and abused, personally. I've heard about others who have been exploited and abused. This problem was extant even before there was language to model.
Oh wow. My respect for Anthropic just dropped to zero; I had no idea they were entertaining ideas this stupid. In full agreement with OP; there is just about no justifiable basis to begin to ascribe consciousness to these things in this way. Can't think of a better use for the word "dehumanizing."
What is so absurd about the idea of ascribing consciousness to some potential future form of AI? We don't understand consciousness, but we've an idea that it's an emergent phenomena. Given the recent papers about how computationally dense our DNA are, and the computing capacity of our brains, is it so unreasonable to assume that a sufficiently complex program running on non-organic matter could give rise to conscious…
We’re engineering nothing novel at great resource cost and appropriation of agency.
Good job we made the models in the textbook “real”?
Wasted engineering if it isn’t teaching us anything physics hadn’t already decades ago, then. Why bother with it?
Edit: and AGI is impossible… ones light cone does not extend far enough to accurately learn; training on simulation is not sufficient to prepare for reality. Any machine we make will eventually get destroyed by some composition of space time we/the machine could not prepare for.