Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Claude Opus 4 and 4.1 can now end a rare subset of conversations

anthropic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 453 posts

Re: Claude Opus 4 and 4.1 can now end a rare subset of conversations

#151

Post by qgin »

viccis wrote: post #132
kelnos wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would much rather people be thinking about this when the models/LLMs/AIs are not sentient or conscious, rather than wait until some hypothetical future date when they are, and have no moral or legal framework in place to deal with it. We constantly run into problems where laws and ethics are not up to the task of giving us guidelines on how to interact with, treat, and use the (often bleeding-edge) technology we ha…

LLMs are, and will always be, tools. Not people

Humanity has a pretty extensive track record of making that declaration wrongly.

Re: Claude Opus 4 and 4.1 can now end a rare subset of conversations

#152

Post by derektank »

root_axis wrote: post #140
kelnos wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would much rather people be thinking about this when the models/LLMs/AIs are not sentient or conscious, rather than wait until some hypothetical future date when they are, and have no moral or legal framework in place to deal with it. We constantly run into problems where laws and ethics are not up to the task of giving us guidelines on how to interact with, treat, and use the (often bleeding-edge) technology we ha…

Consciousness serves no functional purpose for machine learning models, they don't need it and we didn't design them to have it. There's no reason to think that they might spontaneously become conscious as a side effect of their design unless you believe other arbitrarily complex systems that exist in nature like economies or jetstreams could also be conscious.

>Consciousness serves no functional purpose for machine learning models, they don't need it and we didn't design them to have it.

Isn't consciousness an emergent property of brains? If so, how do we know that it doesn't serve a functional purpose and that it wouldn't be necessary for an AI system to have consciousness (assuming we wanted to train it to perform cognitive tasks done by people)?

Now, certain aspects of consciousness (awareness of pain, sadness, loneliness, etc.) might serve no purpose for a non-biological system and there's no reason to expect those aspects would emerge organically. But I don't think you can extend that to the entire concept of consciousness.

Re: Claude Opus 4 and 4.1 can now end a rare subset of conversations

#154

Post by bamboozled »

KoolKat23 wrote: post #146
viccis wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We all know how these things are built and trained. They estimate joint probability distributions of token sequences. That's it. They're not more "conscious" than the simplest of Naive Bayes email spam filters, which are also generative estimators of token sequence joint probability distributions, and I guarantee you those spam filters are subjected to far more human depravity than Claude. >anti-scientific Discussion…

If we really wanted we could distill humans down to probability distributions too.

Have more, good, sex.

Re: Claude Opus 4 and 4.1 can now end a rare subset of conversations

#157

Post by throwawaysleep »

viccis wrote: post #84

>This feature was developed primarily as part of our exploratory work on potential AI welfare ... We remain highly uncertain about the potential moral status of Claude and other LLMs ... low-cost interventions to mitigate risks to model welfare, in case such welfare is possible ... pattern of apparent distress Well looks like AI psychosis has spread to the people making it too. And as someone else in here has pointed…

> even if someone is simple minded or mentally unwell enough to think that current LLMs are conscious

I assume the thinking is that we may one day get to the point where they have a consciousness of sorts or at least simulate it.

Or it could be concern for their place in history. For most of history, many would have said “imagine thinking you shouldn’t beat slaves.”

And we are now at the point where even having a slave means a long prison sentence.

Re: Claude Opus 4 and 4.1 can now end a rare subset of conversations

#158

Post by cmrx64 »

Fade_Dance wrote: post #100
viccis wrote: post #84

>This feature was developed primarily as part of our exploratory work on potential AI welfare ... We remain highly uncertain about the potential moral status of Claude and other LLMs ... low-cost interventions to mitigate risks to model welfare, in case such welfare is possible ... pattern of apparent distress Well looks like AI psychosis has spread to the people making it too. And as someone else in here has pointed…

I find it, for lack of a better word, cringe inducing how these tech specialists push into these areas of ethics, often ham-fistedly, and often with an air of superiority. Some of the AI safety initiatives are well thought out, but most somehow seem like they are caught up in some sort of power fantasy and almost attempting to actualize their own delusions about what they were doing (next gen code auto-complete in th…

Amanda Askell is Anthropic’s philospher and this is part of that work.

Re: Claude Opus 4 and 4.1 can now end a rare subset of conversations

#159

Post by wrs »

viccis wrote: post #84

>This feature was developed primarily as part of our exploratory work on potential AI welfare ... We remain highly uncertain about the potential moral status of Claude and other LLMs ... low-cost interventions to mitigate risks to model welfare, in case such welfare is possible ... pattern of apparent distress Well looks like AI psychosis has spread to the people making it too. And as someone else in here has pointed…

Well, it’s right there in the name of the company!

Re: Claude Opus 4 and 4.1 can now end a rare subset of conversations

#160

Post by intotheabyss »

root_axis wrote: post #140
kelnos wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would much rather people be thinking about this when the models/LLMs/AIs are not sentient or conscious, rather than wait until some hypothetical future date when they are, and have no moral or legal framework in place to deal with it. We constantly run into problems where laws and ethics are not up to the task of giving us guidelines on how to interact with, treat, and use the (often bleeding-edge) technology we ha…

Consciousness serves no functional purpose for machine learning models, they don't need it and we didn't design them to have it. There's no reason to think that they might spontaneously become conscious as a side effect of their design unless you believe other arbitrarily complex systems that exist in nature like economies or jetstreams could also be conscious.

Do you think this changes if we incorporate a model into a humanoid robot and give it autonomous control and context? Or will "faking it" be enough, like it is now?
Post reply on HN