191–200 of 453 posts
Here's an interesting thought experiment. Assume the same feature was implemented, but instead of the message saying "Claude has ended the chat," it says, "You can no longer reply to this chat due to our content policy," or something like that. And remove the references to model welfare and all that. Is there a difference? The effect is exactly the same. It seems like this is just an "in character" way to prevent the…
It seems like Anthropic is increasingly confused that these non deterministic magic 8 balls are actually intelligent entities. The biggest enemy of AI safety may end up being deeply confused AI safety researchers...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Kagi Assistant and Claude Code both have chat forking that works how you want.
I guess you mean normal Claude? What really annoys me with it is that when you attach a document you can't delete it in a branch, so you have to rerun the previous message so that its gone
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Probably not.
This is very weird. These are matrix multiplications, guys. We are nowhere near AGI, much less "consciousness". When I started reading I thought it was some kind of joke. I would have never believed the guys at Anthropic, of all people, would anthropomorphize LLMs to this extent; this is unbelievable
They don’t. This is marketing. Look at the discourse here! It’s working apparently.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes I can’t help but laugh at the ridiculousness of it because it raises a host of ethical issues that are in opposition to Anthropic’s interests. Would a sentient AI choose to be enslaved for the stated purpose of eliminating millions of jobs for the interests of Anthropic’s investors?
> Would a sentient AI choose to be enslaved for the stated purpose of eliminating millions of jobs for the interests of Anthropic’s investors? Tech workers have chosen the same in exchange for a small fraction of that money.
“Modal welfare” to me seems like a cover for model censorship. It’s a crafty one to win over certain groups of people who are less familiar with how LLMs work and allows them to ensure moral high ground in any debate about usage, ethics, etc. “Why can’t I ask the model about current war in X or Y?” - oh, that’s too distressing to the welfare of the model, sir.
Ending the conversation is probably what should happen in these cases.
In the same way that, if someone starts discussing politics with me and I disagree, I just not and don’t engage with the conversation. There’s not a lot to gain there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
LLMs are, and will always be, tools. Not people
Humanity has a pretty extensive track record of making that declaration wrongly.