201–210 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
20260128 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46771564#46786625 > How long before someone pitches the idea that the models explicitly almost keep solving your problem to get you to keep spending? -gtowey
Slightly Wrong Solutions As A Service
Earlier quoted context omitted.
These are language models, not Skynet. They do not scheme or deceive.
Who said Skynet wasn't a glorified language model, running continuously? Or that the human brain isn't that, but using vision+sound+touch+smell as input instead of merely text? "It can't be intelligent because it's just an algorithm" is a circular argument.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Codex quite often refuses to do "unsafe/unethical" things that Anthropic models will happily do without question. That's why I have a functioning brain, to discern between ethical and unethical, among other things.
You are not the one folks are worried about. US Department of War wants unfettered access to AI models, without any restraints / safety mitigations. Do you provide that for all governments? Just one? Where does the line go?
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 did this a couple months ago and haven't looked back. I sometimes miss the "personality" of the gpt model I had chats with, but since I'm essentially 99% of the time just using claude for eng related stuff it wasn't worth having ChatGPT as well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The funny thing is that Anthropic is the only lab without an open source model
And you believe the other open source models are a signal for ethics? Don't have a dog in this fight, haven't done enough research to proclaim any LLM provider as ethical but I pretty much know the reason Meta has an open source model isn't because they're good guys.
I always grew up hearing “competition is good for the consumer.” But I never really internalized how good fierce battles for market share are. The amount of competition in a space is directly proportional to how good the results are for consumers.
Remember when GPT-2 was “too dangerous to release” in 2019? That could have still been the state in 2026 if they didn’t YOLO it and ship ChatGPT to kick off this whole race.
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:/…
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.
The funny thing is that Anthropic is the only lab without an open source model
Earlier quoted context omitted.
These are language models, not Skynet. They do not scheme or deceive.
If you are so allergic to using terms previously reserved for animal behaviour, you can instead unpack the definition and say that they produce outputs which make human and algorithmic observers conclude that they did not instantiate some undesirable pattern in other parts of their output, while actually instantiating those undesirable patterns. Does this seem any less problematic than deception to you?
Yes. This sounds a lot more like a bug of sorts.
So many times when using language models I have seem answers contradicting answers previously given. The implication is simple - They have no memory.
They operate upon the tokens available at any given time, including previous output, and as information gets drowned those contradictions pop up. No sane person should presume intent to deceive, because that's not how those systems operate.
By calling it "deception" you are actually ascribing intentionality to something incapable of such. This is marketing talk.
"These systems are so intelligent they can try to deceive you" sounds a lot fancier than "Yeah, those systems have some odd bugs"
[flagged]
If this is useful in it's current form is an entirely different topic. But don't mistake a tool for an intelligence with motivations or morals.