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

241–250 of 453 posts

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

#241

Post by fc417fc802 »

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…

> I want a government-issued digital ID with zero-knowledge proof for things like age verification

I absolutely do not want this, on the basis that making ID checks too easy will result in them being ubiquitous which sets the stage for human rights abuses down the road. I don't want the government to have easy ways to interfere in someone's day to day life beyond the absolute bare minimum.

> government issued email, integrated with an OAuth provider

I feel the same way, with the caveat that the protocol be encrypted and substantially resemble Matrix. This implies that resetting your credentials won't grant access to past messages.

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

#242

Post by caminanteblanco »

This feels to me like a marketing ploy to try to inflate the perceived importance and intelligence of Claude's models to laypeople, and a way to grab headlines like "Anthropic now allows models to end conversations they find threatening."

It reminds me of how Sam Altman is always shouting about the dangers of AGI from the rooftops, as if OpenAI is mere weeks away from developing it.

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

#243

Post by AdieuToLogic »

Davidzheng wrote: post #237
victor9000 wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

isn't anthropomorphizeability of the algorithm one of the main features of LLM (that you can interact with it in natural language as with a human)?

No.

Interacting with a program which has NLP[0] functionality is separate and distinct from people assigning human characteristics to same. The former is a convenient UI interaction option whereas the latter is the act of assigning perceived capabilities to the program which only exist in the mind of those whom do so.

Another way to think about it is the difference between reality and fantasy.

0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_language_processing

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

#244

Post by fc417fc802 »

debazel wrote: post #201
clwg wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ge…

I was recently surprised to learn that the mainstream adult websites actively send a header identifying themselves as such and have been doing so for something like the past 20 years. The services that we would reasonably want to impose age checks on are already actively facilitating their own filtering.

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

#245

Post by xpe »

caminanteblanco wrote: post #242

This feels to me like a marketing ploy to try to inflate the perceived importance and intelligence of Claude's models to laypeople, and a way to grab headlines like "Anthropic now allows models to end conversations they find threatening." It reminds me of how Sam Altman is always shouting about the dangers of AGI from the rooftops, as if OpenAI is mere weeks away from developing it.

I don’t put Dario Amodei and Sam Altman in the same category.

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

#246

Post by xpe »

orbital-decay wrote: post #204
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 particu…

There’s so much confusion here. Nothing in the press release should be construed to imply that a model has sentience, can feel pain, or has moral value.

When AI researchers say e.g. “the model is lying” or “the model is distressed” it is just shorthand for what the words signify in a broader sense. This is common usage in AI safety research.

Yes, this usage might be taken the wrong way. But still these kinds of things need to be communicated. So it is a tough tradeoff between brevity and precision.

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

#247

Post by adrianmonk »

victor9000 wrote: post #183
KoolKat23 wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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

I think they're answering a question about whether there is a distinction. To answer that question, it's valid to talk about a conceptual distinction that can be made even if you don't necessarily believe in that distinction yourself.

As the article said, Anthropic is "working to identify and implement low-cost interventions to mitigate risks to model welfare, in case such welfare is possible". That's the premise of this discussion: that model welfare MIGHT BE a concern. The person you replied to is just sticking with the premise.

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

#248

Post by xpe »

GenerWork wrote: post #15

I really don't like this. This will inevitable expand beyond child porn and terrorism, and it'll all be up to the whims of "AI safety" people, who are quickly turning into digital hall monitors.

If a person’s political philosophy seeks to maximize individual freedom over the short term, then that person should brace themselves for the actions of destructive lunatics. They deserve maximum freedoms too, right? /s

Even hard-core libertarians account for the public welfare.

Wise advocates of individual freedoms plan over long time horizons which requires decision-making under uncertainty.

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

#249

Post by OhioMan2943 »

fc417fc802 wrote: post #241
clwg wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> I want a government-issued digital ID with zero-knowledge proof for things like age verification I absolutely do not want this, on the basis that making ID checks too easy will result in them being ubiquitous which sets the stage for human rights abuses down the road. I don't want the government to have easy ways to interfere in someone's day to day life beyond the absolute bare minimum. > government issued email,…

My Idea is you go to a post office with your id and they give you an anonymous verification token (proven through open source) you can use to create a person verified email at home. limit on how many per year. protected top level domain like .edu and .mil are currently that only certified humans can use, so your email can be anonymous but also a proof of identity

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

#250

Post by mhh__ »

bbor wrote: post #103
mhh__ wrote: post #96

Anthropic are going to end up building very dangerous things while trying to avoid being evil

You think Model Welfare Inc. is more likely to be dangerous than the Mechahitler Brothers, the Great Church of Altman, or the Race-To-Monopoly Corporation? Or are you just saying all frontier AGI research is bad?

AI safety warriors will make safer models but build the tools and cultural affordances for genuine suppression

Or at least it's very hubristic. It's a cultural and personality equivalent of beating out left-handedness.

Post reply on HN