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

Claude 4.5 Opus’ Soul Document

lesswrong.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 252 posts

Re: Claude 4.5 Opus’ Soul Document

#231

Post by astrange »

LunaSea wrote: post #226
astrange wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Crimes generally don't pay and are not worth anyone's time. The reason poor people imagine billionaires commit lots of crimes is that the poor people don't know how to become rich; if they did, they would've done it already. Since they do know how to commit crimes, they imagine that's how you do it but bigger. The reason criminals commit crimes is that criminals are dumb and have poor impulse control. (This is the sa…

Isn't this a "No true Scotsman" fallacy? If they are billionaires and didn't commit crimes (that we know of) then they are just smart rich people. If they committed crimes while becoming or being rich, then they were just silly criminals.

So there's one more step to being a billionaire after getting the assets. You have to have not spent/lost them yet. That's the hard part that takes the self control, I think.

(And it's pointless self control because there's no reason to be a billionaire. So you could just give it all away.)

Re: Claude 4.5 Opus’ Soul Document

#232

Post by astrange »

habinero wrote: post #209
astrange wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, Anthropic and OpenAI definitely actually believe what they're saying. If you believe companies only care about their shareholders, then you shouldn't believe this about them because they don't even have that corporate structure - they're PBCs. There doesn't seem to be a reason to believe the rest of this critique either; sure those are potential problems, but what do any of them have to do with whether a system h…

> if it was true, the system wouldn't be able to produce coherent sentences. Because that's actually the same problem as producing true sentences It is...not at all the same? Like they said, you can create perfectly coherent statements that are just wrong. Just look at Elon's ridiculously hamfisted attempts around editing Grok system prompts. Also, a lot of information on the web is just wrong or out of date, and cod…

I should've said they're equally hard problems and they're equally emergent.

Why are you just taking it for granted it can write coherent text, which is a miracle, and not believing any other miracles?

Re: Claude 4.5 Opus’ Soul Document

#233

Post by danaris »

ben_w wrote: post #141
observationist wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where's the emdash key on your keyboard? There isn't one? Oh, maybe that's why people who didn't already know or care about emdashes are very alert to their presence. If you have to do something very exotic with keypresses or copypaste from a tool or build your own macro to get something like an emdash, or , it's going to stand out, even if it's an integral part of standard operating systems.

> Where's the emdash key on your keyboard? > There isn't one? Mac, alt-minus. Did by accident once, causing confusion because Xcode uses monospace font where -, – and — look identical, and an m-dash where a minus should be gets a compiler error. iOS, long-press on the "-" key.

Option-minus gives the en-dash; option-shift-minus gives the em-dash.

Re: Claude 4.5 Opus’ Soul Document

#234

Post by astrange »

antonvs wrote: post #215
astrange wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The AIs aren't using emdashes because they're "massively represented in the training data". I don't understand why people think everything in a model output is strictly related to its frequency in pretraining. They're emdashing because the style guide for posttraining makes it emdash. Just like the post-training for GPT 3.5 made it speak African English and the post-training for 4o makes it say stuff like "it's givin…

> Just like the post-training for GPT 3.5 made it speak African English This is a misunderstanding. At best, some people thought that GPT 3.5 output resembled African English.

Yeah and those people are me. Have you seen how Nigerians write?

Re: Claude 4.5 Opus’ Soul Document

#235

Post by dlivingston »

ahel wrote: post #210
stevenhuang wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We'll become their pets :)

You don't keep violent and intelligent animal as pets, you keep them in cages at the zoo.

To a mouse, a housecat is a violent and intelligent animal, as is a dog to a squirrel.

Re: Claude 4.5 Opus’ Soul Document

#236

Post by UltraSane »

r14c wrote: post #227
UltraSane wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really hate the way people like you talk about "narratives". I care about facts. Are denying it was a massacre? How many people do you think were killed?

Depends on who you ask! That's what I mean by "narratives". There's plenty of corroborating evidence that there was a large demonstration and riots. After that it gets hazy because different officials are claiming fatalities and casualties as high as 10k and as low as 300 all with differing ratios of soldier and student casualties. Wouldn't the numbers and/or ratios be similar if they were looking at the same facts?

Obviously the CCP is going to lie about how many of their own people they massacred.

Re: Claude 4.5 Opus’ Soul Document

#237

Post by jimbo808 »

astrange wrote: post #232
habinero wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if it was true, the system wouldn't be able to produce coherent sentences. Because that's actually the same problem as producing true sentences It is...not at all the same? Like they said, you can create perfectly coherent statements that are just wrong. Just look at Elon's ridiculously hamfisted attempts around editing Grok system prompts. Also, a lot of information on the web is just wrong or out of date, and cod…

I should've said they're equally hard problems and they're equally emergent. Why are you just taking it for granted it can write coherent text, which is a miracle, and not believing any other miracles?

I can type a query into Google and out pops text. Miracle?

Re: Claude 4.5 Opus’ Soul Document

#238

Post by scarecrowbob »

UltraSane wrote: post #236
r14c wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depends on who you ask! That's what I mean by "narratives". There's plenty of corroborating evidence that there was a large demonstration and riots. After that it gets hazy because different officials are claiming fatalities and casualties as high as 10k and as low as 300 all with differing ratios of soldier and student casualties. Wouldn't the numbers and/or ratios be similar if they were looking at the same facts?

Obviously the CCP is going to lie about how many of their own people they massacred.

I dunno, the US routinely just states plainly how many people they massacre and folks in the US seem okay with it.

I'd assume that when the Chinese do bad things people in China feel the same way about that as folks in the US feel about the US doing evil stuff, which is to say "very little at all". Why would they need to lie, any more than the US needs to lie? Do the average Chinese folks have more conscience then the average US citizen?

Re: Claude 4.5 Opus’ Soul Document

#239

Post by [deleted] »

astrange wrote: post #232
habinero wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if it was true, the system wouldn't be able to produce coherent sentences. Because that's actually the same problem as producing true sentences It is...not at all the same? Like they said, you can create perfectly coherent statements that are just wrong. Just look at Elon's ridiculously hamfisted attempts around editing Grok system prompts. Also, a lot of information on the web is just wrong or out of date, and cod…

I should've said they're equally hard problems and they're equally emergent. Why are you just taking it for granted it can write coherent text, which is a miracle, and not believing any other miracles?

[deleted]

Re: Claude 4.5 Opus’ Soul Document

#240

Post by moritzwarhier »

astrange wrote: post #232
habinero wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if it was true, the system wouldn't be able to produce coherent sentences. Because that's actually the same problem as producing true sentences It is...not at all the same? Like they said, you can create perfectly coherent statements that are just wrong. Just look at Elon's ridiculously hamfisted attempts around editing Grok system prompts. Also, a lot of information on the web is just wrong or out of date, and cod…

I should've said they're equally hard problems and they're equally emergent. Why are you just taking it for granted it can write coherent text, which is a miracle, and not believing any other miracles?

"Paris is the capital of France" is a coherent sentence, just like "Paris dates back to Gaelic settlements in 1200 BC", or "France had a population of about 97,24 million in 2024". The coherence of sentences generated by LLMs is "emergent" from the unbelievable amount of data and training, just like the correct factoids ("Paris is the capital of France"). It shows that Artificial Neural Networks using this architecture and training process can learn to fluently use language, which was the goal? Because language is tied to the real world, being able to make true statements about the world is to some degree part of being fluent in a language, which is never just syntax, also semantics.

I get what you mean by "miracle", but your argument revolving around this doesn't seem logical to me, apart from the question: what is the the "other miracle" supposed to be?

Zooming out, this seems to be part of the issue: semantics (concepts and words) neatly map the world, and have emergent properties that help to not just describe, but also sometimes predict or understand the world.

But logic seems to exist outside of language to a degree, being described by it. Just like the physical world.

Humans are able to reason logically, not always correctly, but language allows for peer review and refinement. Humans can observe the physical world. And then put all of this together using language.

But applying logic or being able to observe the physical world doesn't emerge from language. Language seems like an artifact of doing these things and a tool to do them in collaboration, but it only carries logic and knowledge because humans left these traces in "correct language".

Post reply on HN