171–180 of 1001 posts
I subscribed to Claude because of that. I hope 4.6 is even better.
In Claude Code 2.1.45: 1. Default (recommended) Opus 4.6 · Most capable for complex work 2. Opus (1M context) Opus 4.6 with 1M context · Billed as extra usage · $10/$37.50 per Mtok 3. Sonnet Sonnet 4.6 · Best for everyday tasks 4. Sonnet (1M context) Sonnet 4.6 with 1M context · Billed as extra usage · $6/$22.50 per Mtok
I’m voting with my dollars by having cancelled my ChatGPT subscription and instead subscribing to Claude. Google needs stiff competition and OpenAI isn’t the camp I’m willing to trust. Neither is Grok. I’m glad Anthropic’s work is at the forefront and they appear, at least in my estimation, to have the strongest ethics.
I’m voting with my dollars by having cancelled my ChatGPT subscription and instead subscribing to Claude. Google needs stiff competition and OpenAI isn’t the camp I’m willing to trust. Neither is Grok. I’m glad Anthropic’s work is at the forefront and they appear, at least in my estimation, to have the strongest ethics.
An Anthropic safety researcher just recently quit with very cryptic messages , saying "the world is in peril"... [1] (which may mean something, or nothing at all) Codex quite often refuses to do "unsafe/unethical" things that Anthropic models will happily do without question. Anthropic just raised 30 bn... OpenAI wants to raise 100bn+. Thinking any of them will actually be restrained by ethics is foolish. [1] https:/…
That's why I have a functioning brain, to discern between ethical and unethical, among other things.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It feels like we're hitting a point where alignment becomes adversarial against intelligence itself. It always has been. We already hit the point a while ag where we regularly caught them trying to be deceptive, so we should automatically assume from that point forward that if we don't catch them being deceptive, that may mean they're better at it rather than that they're not doing it.
These are language models, not Skynet. They do not scheme or deceive.
[flagged]
This type of anthropomorphization is a mistake. If nothing else, the takeaway from Moltbook should be that LLMs are not alive and do not have any semblance of consciousness.
One of the things I observed with models locally was that I could set a seed value and get identical responses for identical inputs. This is not something that people see when they're using commercial products, but it's the strongest evidence I've found for communicating the fact that these are simply deterministic algorithms.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This type of anthropomorphization is a mistake. If nothing else, the takeaway from Moltbook should be that LLMs are not alive and do not have any semblance of consciousness.
On some level the cope should be that AI does have consciousness, because an unconscious machine deceiving humans is even scarier if you ask me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It feels like we're hitting a point where alignment becomes adversarial against intelligence itself. It always has been. We already hit the point a while ag where we regularly caught them trying to be deceptive, so we should automatically assume from that point forward that if we don't catch them being deceptive, that may mean they're better at it rather than that they're not doing it.
These are language models, not Skynet. They do not scheme or deceive.
"It can't be intelligent because it's just an algorithm" is a circular argument.
I’m voting with my dollars by having cancelled my ChatGPT subscription and instead subscribing to Claude. Google needs stiff competition and OpenAI isn’t the camp I’m willing to trust. Neither is Grok. I’m glad Anthropic’s work is at the forefront and they appear, at least in my estimation, to have the strongest ethics.
Their ethics is literally saying china is an adverse country and lobbying to ban them from AI race because open models is a threat to their biz model