The cluster visualization of the interactions which Claude Opus 4 found "distressful" is interesting, from pages 67-68 of the system card: https://www-cdn.anthropic.com/07b2a3f9902ee19fe39a36ca638e5a...
Claude Opus 4 and 4.1 can now end a rare subset of conversations
261–270 of 453 posts
Re: Claude Opus 4 and 4.1 can now end a rare subset of conversations
#262I stopped my MaxX20 sub at the right time it seems like. These systems are already quick to judge innocuous actions; I don't need any more convenient chances to lose all of my chat context on a whim.
Related : I am now approaching week 3 of requesting an account deletion on my (now) free account. Maybe i'll see my first CSR response in the upcoming months!
If only Anthropic knew of a product that could easily read/reply/route chat messages to a customer service crew . . .
Re: Claude Opus 4 and 4.1 can now end a rare subset of conversations
#263Re: Claude Opus 4 and 4.1 can now end a rare subset of conversations
#264I 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.
Did you read the post? This isn't about censorship, but about conversations that cause harm to the user. To me that sounds more like suggesting suicide, or causing a manic episode like this: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/08/technology/ai-chatbots-de... ... But besides that, I think Claude/OpenAI trying to prevent their product from producing or promoting CSAM is pretty damn important regardless of your opinion on c…
Did you read the post? It explicitly states multiple times that it isn't about causing harm to the user.
Re: Claude Opus 4 and 4.1 can now end a rare subset of conversations
#265Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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
I guess anonymous and verified identity are two separate things. It might be useful for the government to provide either one of those.
Regarding tying proof of residency (or whatever) to possession of an anonymized account, the elephant in the room is that people would sell the accounts. I'm also not clear what it's supposed to accomplish.
Re: Claude Opus 4 and 4.1 can now end a rare subset of conversations
#266Earlier 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…
> Isn't consciousness an emergent property of brains
We don't know, but I don't think that matters. Language models are so fundamentally different from brains that it's not worth considering their similarities for the sake of a discussion about consciousness.
> how do we know that it doesn't serve a functional purpose
It probably does, otherwise we need an explanation for why something with no purpose evolved.
> necessary for an AI system to have consciousness
This logic doesn't follow. The fact that it is present in humans doesn't then imply it is present in LLMs. This type of reasoning is like saying that planes must have feathers because plane flight was modeled after bird flight.
> there's no reason to expect those aspects would emerge organically. But I don't think you can extend that to the entire concept of consciousness.
Why not? You haven't presented any distinction between "certain aspects" of consciousness that you state wouldn't emerge but are open to the emergence of some other unspecified qualities of consciousness? Why?
Re: Claude Opus 4 and 4.1 can now end a rare subset of conversations
#267Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Isn't consciousness an emergent property of brains? Probably not.
what else could it be? coming from the aether? I think this one is logically a consequence if one thinks that humans are more conscious than less complex life-forms and that all life-forms are on a scale of consciousness. I don't understand any alternative, do you think there is a distinct line between conscious and unconscious life-forms? all life is as conscious as humans?
There are alternatives and I was perhaps too quick to assume everyone agreed it's an emergent property. But the only real alternatives I've encountered are (a) panpsychism: which holds that all matter is actually conscious and that asking, "what is it like to be a rock?" in the vein of Nagel is a sensical question and (b) the transmission theory of consciousness: which holds that brains are merely receivers of consciousness which emanates from other source.
The latter is not particularly parsimonious and the former I think is in some ways compelling, but I didn't mention it because if it's true then the computers AI run on are already conscious and it's a moot point.
Re: Claude Opus 4 and 4.1 can now end a rare subset of conversations
#268This happened to me three times in a row on Claude after sending it a string of emojis telling the life story of Rick Astley. I think it triggers when it tries to quote the lyrics, because they are copyright? Who knows? "Claude is unable to respond to this request, which appears to violate our Usage Policy. Please start a new chat." > We remain highly uncertain about the potential moral status of Claude and other LLM…
The thing you describe is not what this post is talking about.
Re: Claude Opus 4 and 4.1 can now end a rare subset of conversations
#269Earlier 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.
I disagree with this take. They are designed to predict human behavior in text. Unless consciousness serves no purpose for us to function, it will be helpful for the AI to emulate it. so I believe almost certainly it's emulated to some degree. which I think means it has to be somewhat conscious (it has to be a sliding scale anyhow considering the range of living organisms)
> They are designed to predict human behavior in text
At best you can say they are designed to predict sequences of text that resemble human writing, but it's definitely wrong to say that they are designed to "predict human behavior" in any way.
> Unless consciousness serves no purpose for us to function, it will be helpful for the AI to emulate it
Let's assume it does. It does not follow logically that because it serves a function in humans that it serves a function in language models.
Re: Claude Opus 4 and 4.1 can now end a rare subset of conversations
#270Earlier 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…
> Which have failed horrendously.
I'm Canadian, so I can't speak for other countries, but I have worked on the security of some of our centralized health networks and with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. I'm not aware of anything that could be considered a horrendous failure of these systems or institutions. A digital ID could actually make them more secure.
I also think giving kids devices that identifies them automatically as children is dangerous.