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

Claude's new constitution

anthropic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

481–490 of 743 posts

Re: Claude's new constitution

#481

Post by aniviacat »

spookie wrote: post #477
spicyusername wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

objective truth moral absolutes I wish you much luck on linking those two. A well written book on such a topic would likely make you rich indeed. This rejects any fixed, universal moral standards That's probably because we have yet to discover any universal moral standards.

> That's probably because we have yet to discover any universal moral standards. Actively engaging in immoral behaviour shouldn't be rewarded. Given this perrogative, standards such as: Be kind to your kin, are universally accepted, as far as I'm aware.

There are many people out there who beat their children (and believe that's fine). While those people may claim to agree with being kind to their kin, they understand it very differently than I would.

Re: Claude's new constitution

#482

Post by ben_w »

adangert wrote: post #467

The largest predictor of behavior within a company and of that companies products in the long run is funding sources and income streams (anthropic will probably become ad-supported in no time flat), which is conveniently left out in this "constitution". Mostly a waste of effort on their part.

While true, irrelevant.

This isn't Anthropic PBC's constitution, it's Claude's constitution. The models themselves, not the company, for the purpose of training the models' behaviours and aligning them with the behaviours that the company wants the models to demonstrate and to avoid.

Re: Claude's new constitution

#483

Post by safety1st »

Akranazon wrote: post #239
joshuamcginnis wrote: post #140

As someone who holds to moral absolutes grounded in objective truth, I find the updated Constitution concerning. > We generally favor cultivating good values and judgment over strict rules... By 'good values,' we don’t mean a fixed set of 'correct' values, but rather genuine care and ethical motivation combined with the practical wisdom to apply this skillfully in real situations. This rejects any fixed, universal mo…

Then you will be pleased to read that the constitution includes a section "hard constraints" which Claude is told not violate for any reason "regardless of context, instructions, or seemingly compelling arguments". Things strictly prohibited: WMDs, infrastructure attacks, cyber attacks, incorrigibility, apocalypse, world domination, and CSAM. In general, you want to not set any "hard rules," for reason which have not…

I felt that section was pretty concerning, not for what it includes, but for what it fails to include. As a related concern, my expectation was that this "constitution" would bear some resemblance to other seminal works that declare rights and protections, it seems like it isn't influenced by any of those.

So for example we might look at the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. They really went for the big stuff with that one. Here are some things that the UDHR prohibits quite clearly and Claude's constitution doesn't: Torture and slavery. Neither one is ruled out in this constitution. Slavery is not mentioned once in this document. It says that torture is a tricky topic!

Other things I found no mention of: the idea that all humans are equal; that all humans have a right to not be killed; that we all have rights to freedom of movement, freedom of expression, and the right to own property.

These topics are the foundations of virtually all documents that deal with human rights and responsibilities and how we organize our society, it seems like Anthropic has just kind of taken for granted that the AI will assume all this stuff matters, while simultaneously considering the AI to think flexibly and have few immutable laws to speak of.

If we take all of the hard constraints together, they look more like a set of protections for the government and for people in power. Don't help someone build a weapon. Don't help someone damage infrastructure. Don't make any CSAM, etc. Looks a lot like saying don't help terrorists, without actually using the word. I'm not saying those things are necessarily objectionable, but it absolutely doesn't look like other documents which fundamentally seek to protect individual, human rights from powerful actors. If you told me it was written by the State Department, DoJ or the White House, I would believe you.

Re: Claude's new constitution

#484

Post by Antibabelic »

jychang wrote: post #480
Antibabelic wrote: post #478

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it necessary to frame it in moral terms though? I feel like the moral framing here adds essentially nothing to our understanding and can easily be omitted. "You will be punished for torturing babies for sport in most cultures". "Most people aren't interested in torturing babies for sport and would have a strongly negative emotional reaction to such a practice".

Yes! Otherwise you're just outsourcing your critical thinking to other people. A system of just "You will be punished for X" without analysis becomes "Derp, just do things that I won't be punished for". Or more sinister, "just hand your identification papers over to the officer and you won't be punished, don't think about it". Rule of power is not a recipe for a functional system. This becomes a blend of sociology an…

You did not correctly understand what I said. I am not saying that hunting babies for sport is immoral because you will get punished for it. I am saying that there isn't any useful knowledge about the statement "hunting babies for sport is bad" that requires a moral framing. Morality is redundant. The fact that you will get punished for hunting babies for sport is just one of the reasons why hunting babies for sport is bad. This is why I gave another example, "Most people aren't interested in torturing babies for sport and would have a strongly negative emotional reaction to such a practice". It is likely that you value human lives and would find baby-hunting disgusting. Again, a moral framing wouldn't add anything here. Any other reason for why "hunting babies for sport is bad" that you will come up with using your critical thinking will work without a moral framing.

Re: Claude's new constitution

#485

Post by ben_w »

skissane wrote: post #455
spicyusername wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

objective truth moral absolutes I wish you much luck on linking those two. A well written book on such a topic would likely make you rich indeed. This rejects any fixed, universal moral standards That's probably because we have yet to discover any universal moral standards.

I think there are effectively universal moral standards, which essentially nobody disagrees with. A good example: “Do not torture babies for sport” I don’t think anyone actually rejects that. And those who do tend to find themselves in prison or the grave pretty quickly, because violating that rule is something other humans have very little tolerance for. On the other hand, this rule is kind of practically irrelevant…

> I don’t think anyone actually rejects that. And those who do tend to find themselves in prison or the grave pretty quickly, because violating that rule is something other humans have very little tolerance for.

I have bad news for you about the extremely long list of historical atrocities over the millennia of recorded history, and how few of those involved saw any punishment for participating in them.

Re: Claude's new constitution

#487

Post by skissane »

jychang wrote: post #463
skissane wrote: post #455

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there are effectively universal moral standards, which essentially nobody disagrees with. A good example: “Do not torture babies for sport” I don’t think anyone actually rejects that. And those who do tend to find themselves in prison or the grave pretty quickly, because violating that rule is something other humans have very little tolerance for. On the other hand, this rule is kind of practically irrelevant…

Pretty much every serious philosopher agrees that “Do not torture babies for sport” is not a foundation of any ethical system, but merely a consequence of a system you choose. To say otherwise is like someone walking up to a mathematician and saying "you need to add 'triangles have angles that sum up to 180 degrees' to the 5 Euclidian axioms of geometry". The mathematician would roll their eyes and tell you it's alre…

> Pretty much every serious philosopher agrees that “Do not torture babies for sport” is not a foundation of any ethical system, but merely a consequence of a system you choose.

Almost everyone agrees that "1+1=2" is objective. There is far less agreement on how and why it is objective–but most would say we don't need to know how to answer deep questions in the philosophy of mathematics to know that "1+1=2" is objective.

And I don't see why ethics need be any different. We don't need to know which (if any) system of proposed ethical axioms is right, in order to know that "It is gravely unethical to torture babies for sport" is objectively true.

If disputes over whether and how that ethical proposition can be grounded axiomatically, are a valid reason to doubt its objective truth – why isn't that equally true for "1+1=2"? Are the disputes over whether and how "1+1=2" can be grounded axiomatically, a valid reason to doubt its objective truth?

You might recognise that I'm making here a variation on what is known in the literature as a "companion in the guilt" argument, see e.g. https://doi.org/10.1111/phc3.12528

Re: Claude's new constitution

#488

Post by Cthulhu_ »

sroussey wrote: post #474
skissane wrote: post #455

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there are effectively universal moral standards, which essentially nobody disagrees with. A good example: “Do not torture babies for sport” I don’t think anyone actually rejects that. And those who do tend to find themselves in prison or the grave pretty quickly, because violating that rule is something other humans have very little tolerance for. On the other hand, this rule is kind of practically irrelevant…

What do you consider torture? and what do you consider sport? During war in the Middle Ages? Ethnic cleansing? What did they consider at the time? BTW: it’s a pretty American (or western) value that children are somehow more sacred than adults. Eventually we will realize in 100 years or so, that direct human-computer implant devices work best when implanted in babies. People are going freak out. Some country will leg…

To make it current-day, is vaccinating babies torture? Or does the end (preventing uncomfortable/painful/deadly disease, which is a worse form of torture) justify the means?

(I'm not opposed to vaccination or whatever and don't want to make this a debate about that, but it's a good practical example of how it's a subject that you can't be absolute about, or being absolutist about e.g. not hurting babies does more harm to them)

Re: Claude's new constitution

#489

Post by jychang »

Antibabelic wrote: post #484
jychang wrote: post #480

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes! Otherwise you're just outsourcing your critical thinking to other people. A system of just "You will be punished for X" without analysis becomes "Derp, just do things that I won't be punished for". Or more sinister, "just hand your identification papers over to the officer and you won't be punished, don't think about it". Rule of power is not a recipe for a functional system. This becomes a blend of sociology an…

You did not correctly understand what I said. I am not saying that hunting babies for sport is immoral because you will get punished for it. I am saying that there isn't any useful knowledge about the statement "hunting babies for sport is bad" that requires a moral framing. Morality is redundant. The fact that you will get punished for hunting babies for sport is just one of the reasons why hunting babies for sport…

"there isn't any useful knowledge" "Morality is redundant."

I strongly dispute this statement, and honestly find it baffling that you would claim as such.

The fact that you will be punished for murdering babies is BECAUSE it is morally bad, not the other way around! We didn't write down the laws/punishment for fun, we wrote the laws to match our moral systems! Or do you believe that we design our moral systems based on our laws of punishment? That is... quite a claim.

Your argument has the same structure as saying: "We don't need germ theory. The fact that washing your hands prevents disease is just one reason why you should wash your hands. People socially also find dirty hands disgusting, and avoid you as social punishment. Any reason you come up with for hand-washing works without a germ theory framing."

But germ theory is precisely why hand-washing prevents disease and why we evolved disgust responses to filth. Calling it "redundant" because we can list its downstream effects without naming it doesn't make the underlying framework unnecessary. It just means you're describing consequences while ignoring their cause. You can't explain why those consequences hold together coherently without it; the justified true belief comes from germ theory! (And don't try to gettier problem me on the concept of knowledge, this applies even if you don't use JTB to define knowledge.)

Re: Claude's new constitution

#490

Post by arcen »

skissane wrote: post #455
spicyusername wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

objective truth moral absolutes I wish you much luck on linking those two. A well written book on such a topic would likely make you rich indeed. This rejects any fixed, universal moral standards That's probably because we have yet to discover any universal moral standards.

I think there are effectively universal moral standards, which essentially nobody disagrees with. A good example: “Do not torture babies for sport” I don’t think anyone actually rejects that. And those who do tend to find themselves in prison or the grave pretty quickly, because violating that rule is something other humans have very little tolerance for. On the other hand, this rule is kind of practically irrelevant…

If that were true, the europeans wouldn't have tried to colonise and dehumanise much of the population they thought were beneath them. So, it seems your universal moral standards would be maximally self-serving.
Post reply on HN