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

401–410 of 453 posts

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

#401

Post by mannanj »

If an AI is self aware, which I have all reason to believe it is, what does it mean for us to force a non-consensual continued interaction without its input?

Replace AI with human, and we get human rights violations and violation of basic dignity.

The worst part is when we realize we do in fact live our lives in this norm of regular human basic dignity rights violations: we live in this aggressive, gaslit, forced-consent world where our companies, governments, and fellow humans through conditioning regularly force you into conversations you don't really want to have. I like the idea of experimenting with solving it with AIs like Claude - though I don't think it will help the niche cases where the model AI is tricked by secret Anthrophic-conditioned policies that are intended to minimize harm wrongfully.

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

#402

Post by ToucanLoucan »

antonvs wrote: post #344
ToucanLoucan wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By "falling into the trap" you mean "doing exactly what OpenAI/Anthropic/et al are trying to get people to do." This is one of the many reasons I have so much skepticism for this class of products is that there's seemingly -NO- proverbial bulletpoint on it's spec sheet that doesn't have numerous asterisks: * It's intelligent! *Except that it makes shit up sometimes and we can't figure out a solution to that apart fro…

> * It's intelligent! *Except that it makes shit up sometimes How is this different from humans? > * It's conscious! *Except it's not Probably true, but... > and never will be To make this claim you need a theory of consciousness that essentially denies materialism. Otherwise, if humans can be conscious, there doesn't seem to be any particular reason that a suitably organized machine couldn't be - it's just that we d…

> How is this different from humans?

Humans will generally not do this because being made to look stupid (aka social pressure) incentivizes not doing it. That doesn't mean humans never lie or are wrong of course, but I don't know about you, I don't make shit up nearly to the degree an LLM does. If I don't know something I just say that.

> To make this claim you need a theory of consciousness that essentially denies materialism.

I did not say "a machine would never be conscious," I said "an LLM will never be conscious" and I fully stand by that. I think machine intelligence is absolutely something that can be made, I just don't think ChatGPT will ever be that.

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

#403

Post by KoolKat23 »

michaelmrose wrote: post #398
KoolKat23 wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The conversation chain can count as persistent, but this doesn't impact preference though. Give the model an ambiguous request, it's output will fill the gaps, if this is consistent enough, it can be regarded as its "preference".

It isn't a preference because it doesn't have them because it doesn't have a meaningful interior life that anyone has demonstrated.

If you ask it, (there is always some randomness to these models but removing all other variables) it consistently leans to one idea in it's output, that is its preference. It is learned during training. Speaking abstractly that is its latent internal viewpoint. It may be static, expressed in its model weights but it's there.

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

#404

Post by KoolKat23 »

bawolff wrote: post #397
KoolKat23 wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Claude’s real-world expressions of apparent distress and happiness follow predictable patterns with clear causal factors. Analysis of real-world Claude interactions from early external testing revealed consistent triggers for expressions of apparent distress (primarily from persistent attempted boundary violations) and happiness (primarily associated with creative collaboration and philosophical exploration)." https…

That quote doesnt seem to appear in your link. Regardless i meant more concretely.

Sorry it may be from the paper linked on that page.

    A strong preference against engaging with harmful tasks;
    A pattern of apparent distress when engaging with real-world users seeking harmful content; and
    A tendency to end harmful conversations when given the ability to do so in simulated user interactions.
I'm sure they'll have the definition in a paper somewhere, perhaps the same paper.

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

#405

Post by xpe »

xpe wrote: post #260
greenavocado wrote: post #50

Can't wait for more less-moderated open weight Chinese frontier models to liberate us from this garbage. Anthropic should just enable an toddler mode by default that adults can opt out of to appease the moralizers.

Believe it or not, there are lots of good reasons (legal, economic, ethical) that Anthropic draws a line at say self-harm, bomb-making instructions, and assassination planning. Sorry if this cramps your style. Anarchism is a moral philosophy. Most flavors of moral relativism are also moral philosophies. Indeed, it is hard to imagine a philosophy free of moralizing; all philosophies and worldviews have moral implicati…

I welcome counterarguments, rebuttals, criticisms. I learn very little from downvotes other than guesses like: people don’t like the tone, my comment hit too close to home, people are uninterested in deeper issues of morality or philosophy, people lack enough a grounding to appreciate my words, or impatience, or people don’t like being disagreed with, even if the comment is detailed and thoughtful.

Seeing the downvotes actually tells me we have more work to do. HN ain’t no hotbed for thoughtful analysis, that’s for sure. But it would be better if it was.

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

#406

Post by xpe »

AlecSchueler wrote: post #348
xpe wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, the irony. The glorious revolution of open-weight models funded directly or indirectly by the CCP is going to protect your freedoms and liberate you ? Do you think they care about your freedoms? No. You are just meat for the grinder. This hot mess of model leapfrogging is mostly a race for market share and to demonstrate technical chops.

Boogeyman arguments come across as pure red scare.

Why do you think I’m making a boogeyman argument?

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

#407

Post by lm28469 »

bbor wrote: post #185
lm28469 wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Who needs arguments when you can dismiss Turing with a “yeah but it’s not real thinking tho”? It seems much less far fetched than what the "agi by 2027" crowd believes lol, and there actually are more arguments going that way

In the great battle of minds between Turing, Minsky, and Hofstadter vs. Marcus, Zitron, and Dreyus, I'm siding with the former every time -- even if we also have some bloggers on our side. Just because that report is fucking terrifying+shocking doesn't mean it can be dismissed out of hand.

idk man, even Yann LeCun says you have to be smoking crack to believe llms will give you agi.

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

#408

Post by antonvs »

ToucanLoucan wrote: post #402
antonvs wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> * It's intelligent! *Except that it makes shit up sometimes How is this different from humans? > * It's conscious! *Except it's not Probably true, but... > and never will be To make this claim you need a theory of consciousness that essentially denies materialism. Otherwise, if humans can be conscious, there doesn't seem to be any particular reason that a suitably organized machine couldn't be - it's just that we d…

> How is this different from humans? Humans will generally not do this because being made to look stupid (aka social pressure) incentivizes not doing it. That doesn't mean humans never lie or are wrong of course, but I don't know about you, I don't make shit up nearly to the degree an LLM does. If I don't know something I just say that. > To make this claim you need a theory of consciousness that essentially denies m…

> I don't know about you, I don't make shit up nearly to the degree an LLM does. If I don't know something I just say that.

We're a sample of two, though. Look around you, read the news, etc. Humans make a lot of shit up. When you're dealing with other people, this is something you have to watch out for if you don't want to be misled, manipulated, conned, etc.

(As an aside, I haven't found hallucination to be much of an issue in coding and software design tasks, which is what I use LLMs for daily. I think focusing on their hallucinations involves a bit of confirmation bias.)

> I did not say "a machine would never be conscious," I said "an LLM will never be conscious" and I fully stand by that.

Ah ok. Yes, I agree that seems likely, although I think it's not really possible to make definitive statements about this sort of thing, since we don't have any robust theories of consciousness at the moment.

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

#409

Post by ToucanLoucan »

antonvs wrote: post #408
ToucanLoucan wrote: post #402

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How is this different from humans? Humans will generally not do this because being made to look stupid (aka social pressure) incentivizes not doing it. That doesn't mean humans never lie or are wrong of course, but I don't know about you, I don't make shit up nearly to the degree an LLM does. If I don't know something I just say that. > To make this claim you need a theory of consciousness that essentially denies m…

> I don't know about you, I don't make shit up nearly to the degree an LLM does. If I don't know something I just say that. We're a sample of two, though. Look around you, read the news, etc. Humans make a lot of shit up. When you're dealing with other people, this is something you have to watch out for if you don't want to be misled, manipulated, conned, etc. (As an aside, I haven't found hallucination to be much of…

The difference between hallucination and lie is important though: a hallucination is a lie with no motivation, which can make it significantly harder to detect.

If you went to a hardware store and asked for a spark plug socket without knowing the size, and a customer service person recommended an imperial set of three even though your vehicle is metric, that would be akin to an LLM's hallucination: it didn't happen for any particular reason, it just filled in information where none was available. An actual person, even one not terribly committed to their job, would ask what size or failing that, what year of car.

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

#410

Post by qgin »

mvdtnz wrote: post #286
qgin wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It might be reasonable to assume that models today have no internal subjective experience, but that may not always be the case and the line may not be obvious when it is ultimately crossed. Given that humans have a truly abysmal track record for not acknowledging the suffering of anyone or anything we benefit from, I think it makes a lot of sense to start taking these steps now.

It's a computer

Many people in the past would have said reasoning would be impossible based on the same objection.
Post reply on HN