Live data from Hacker News

Claude's new constitution

anthropic.com

111–120 of 743 posts

Re: Claude's new constitution

#111
post #65

The constitution contains 43 instances of the word 'genuine', which is my current favourite marker for telling if text has been written by Claude. To me it seems like Claude has a really hard time _not_ using the g word in any lengthy conversation even if you do all the usual tricks in the prompt - ruling, recommending, threatening, bribing. Claude Code doesn't seem to have the same problem, so I assume the system pr…

I apologize for the oversight

Ah, I see the problem now.

Re: Claude's new constitution

#112

I guess this is Anthropic's "don't be evil" moment, but it has about as much (actually much less) weight then when it was Google's motto. There is always an implicit "...for now". No business is every going to maintain any "goodness" for long, especially once shareholders get involved. This is a role for regulation, no matter how Anthropic tries to delay it.

It says: 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.

I wonder what those specialized use cases are and why they need a different set of values. I guess the simplest answer is they mean small fim and tools models but who knows ?

Re: Claude's new constitution

#113

The constitution contains 43 instances of the word 'genuine', which is my current favourite marker for telling if text has been written by Claude. To me it seems like Claude has a really hard time _not_ using the g word in any lengthy conversation even if you do all the usual tricks in the prompt - ruling, recommending, threatening, bribing. Claude Code doesn't seem to have the same problem, so I assume the system pr…

You're absolutely right!

Now that you mention it, a funny expression considering the supposed emphasis they have on honesty as a guiding principle.

Re: Claude's new constitution

#114

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.

Re: Claude's new constitution

#115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're absolutely right!

You're looking at this exactly the right way.

do LLMs arrive at these replies organically? Is it baked into the corpus and naturally emerges? Or are these artifacts of the internal prompting of these companies?

Re: Claude's new constitution

#116
post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would like to see more agent harnesses adopt rules that are actually rules. Right now, most of the "rules" are really guidelines: the agent is free to ignore them and the output will still go through. I'd like to he able to set simple word filters and regenerate that can deterministically block an output completely, and kick the agent back into thinking to correct it. This wouldn't have to be terribly advanced to f…

Seems like a postprocess step on the initial output would fix that kind of thing - maybe a small 'thinking' step that transforms the initial output to match style.

Yeah, that's how it would be implemented after a filter fail, but it's important that the filter itself be separate from the agent, so it can be deterministic. Some problems, like "genuine," are so baked in to the models that they will persist even if instructed not to, so a dumb filter, a la a pre-commit hook, is the only way to stop it consistently.

Re: Claude's new constitution

#117
Absolutely nothing new here. Don’t try to be ethical and be safe, be helpful, transition through transformative AI blablabla.

The only thing that is slightly interesting is the focus on the operator (the API/developer user) role. Hardcoded rules override everything, and operator instructions (rebranded of system instructions) override the user.

I couldn’t see a single thing that isn't already widely known and assumed by everybody.

This reminds me of someone finally getting around to doing a DPIA or other bureaucratic risk assessment in a firm. Nothing actually changes, but now at least we have documentation of what everybody already knew, and we can please the bureaucrats should they come for us.

A more cynical take is that this is just liability shifting. The old paternalistic approach was that Anthropic should prevent the API user from doing "bad things." This is just them washing their hands of responsibility. If the API user (Operator) tells the model to do something sketchy, the model is instructed to assume it's for a "legitimate business reason" (e.g., training a classifier, writing a villain in a story) unless it hits a CSAM-level hard constraint.

I bet some MBA/lawyer is really self-satisfied with how clever they have been right about now.

Re: Claude's new constitution

#118
post #66

Damn. This doc reeks of AI-generated text. Even the summary feels like it was produced by AI. Oh well. I asked Gemini to summarize the summary. As Thanos said, "I used the stones to destroy the stones."

Because its generated by an AI. All of their posts usually feel like 2 sentences enlarged to 20 paragraphs.

At this point, this is mostly for PR stunts as the company prepares for its IPO. It’s like saying, “Guys, look, we used these docs to make our models behave well. Now if they don’t, it’s not our fault.”

Re: Claude's new constitution

#119

I guess this is Anthropic's "don't be evil" moment, but it has about as much (actually much less) weight then when it was Google's motto. There is always an implicit "...for now". No business is every going to maintain any "goodness" for long, especially once shareholders get involved. This is a role for regulation, no matter how Anthropic tries to delay it.

It says: 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. I wonder what those specialized use cases are and why they need a diff…

https://www.anthropic.com/news/anthropic-and-the-department-...
Post reply on HN