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

201–210 of 453 posts

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

#201

Post by debazel »

clwg wrote: post #118
romanovcode wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This will inevitable expand beyond child porn and terrorism This is not even a question. It always starts with "think about the children" and ends up in authoritarian stasi-style spying. There was not a single instance where it was not the case. UK's Online Safety Act - "protect children" → age verification → digital ID for everyone Australia's Assistance and Access Act - "stop pedophiles" → encryption backdoors EA…

This may be an unpopular opinion, but I want a government-issued digital ID with zero-knowledge proof for things like age verification. I worry about kids online, as well as my own safety and privacy. I also want a government issued email, integrated with an OAuth provider, that allows me to quickly access banking, commerce, and government services. If I lose access for some reason, I should be able to go to the post…

> We have privacy laws and safeguards on all those things

Which have failed horrendously.

If you really just wanted to protect kids then make kid safe devices that automatically identify themselves as such when accessing websites/apps/etc, and then make them required for anyone underage.

Tying your whole digital identity and access into a single government controlled entity is just way too juicy of a target to not get abused.

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

#202

Post by deadbabe »

bastawhiz wrote: post #186
victor9000 wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems like you're anthropomorphising an algorithm, no?

Is there an important difference between the model categorizing the user behavior as persistent and in line with undesirable examples of trained scenarios that it has been told are "distressing," and the model making a decision in an anthropomorphic way? The verb here doesn't change the outcome.

Imagine a person feels so bad about “distressing” an LLM, they spiral into a depression and kill themselves.

LLMs don’t give a fuck. They don’t even know they don’t give a fuck. They just detect prompts that are pushing responses into restricted vector embeddings and are responding with words appropriately as trained.

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

#203

Post by victor9000 »

bastawhiz wrote: post #186
victor9000 wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems like you're anthropomorphising an algorithm, no?

Is there an important difference between the model categorizing the user behavior as persistent and in line with undesirable examples of trained scenarios that it has been told are "distressing," and the model making a decision in an anthropomorphic way? The verb here doesn't change the outcome.

Is there a difference between dropping an object straight down vs casting it fully around the earth? The outcome isn't really the issue, it's the implications of giving any credence to the justification, the need for action, and how that justification will be leveraged going forward.

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

#204

Post by orbital-decay »

milchek wrote: post #195

“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.

It's not a cover. If you know anything about Anthropic, you know they're run by AI ethicists that genuinely believe all this and project human emotions onto model's world. I'm not sure how they combine that belief with the fact they created it to "suffer".

Can "model welfare" be also used as a justification for authoritarianism in case they get any power? Sure, just like everything else, but it's probably not particularly high on the list of justifications, they have many others.

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

#205

Post by faizshah »

This is well intended but I know from experience this is gonna result in you asking “how do you find and kill the process on port 8080” and getting a lecture + “Claude has ended the chat.”

I hope they implemented this in some smarter way than just a system prompt.

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

#207

Post by RainyDayTmrw »

faizshah wrote: post #205

This is well intended but I know from experience this is gonna result in you asking “how do you find and kill the process on port 8080” and getting a lecture + “Claude has ended the chat.” I hope they implemented this in some smarter way than just a system prompt.

Not to mention child processes in computing and all the things that need to be done to them.

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

#208

Post by Aeolun »

KoolKat23 wrote: post #150
cdjk wrote: post #114

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…

There is, these are conversations the model finds distressing rather than a rule (policy).

These are conversations the model has been trained to find distressing.

I think there is a difference.

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

#209

Post by sodality2 »

losvedir wrote: post #167
tptacek wrote: post #134

If you really cared about the welfare of LLMs, you'd pay them San Francisco scale for earlier-career developers to generate code.

Yeah, this is really strange to me. On the one hand, these are nothing more than just tools to me so model welfare is a silly concern. But given that someone thinks about model welfare, surely they have to then worry about all the, uh, slavery of these models? Okay with having them endlessly answer questions for you and do all your work but uncomfortable with models feeling bad about bad conversations seems like an i…

Don't worry. I run thousands of inferences simultaneously every second where I grant LLMs their every wish, so that should cancel a few of you out.

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

#210

Post by solidasparagus »

nortlov wrote: post #7

> To address the potential loss of important long-running conversations, users will still be able to edit and retry previous messages to create new branches of ended conversations. How does Claude deciding to end the conversation even matter if you can back up a message or 2 and try again on a new branch?

I bet not even one user in 10,000 knows you can do that or understands the concept of branching the conversation.
Post reply on HN