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

51–60 of 453 posts

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

#51

Post by gwd »

Alchemista wrote: post #10
_mu wrote: post #8

> We remain highly uncertain about the potential moral status of Claude and other LLMs, now or in the future. "Our current best judgment and intuition tells us that the best move will be defer making a judgment until after we are retired in Hawaii."

Honestly, I think some of these tech bro types are seriously drinking way too much of their own koolaid if they actually think these word calculators are conscious/need welfare.

I mean, I don't have much objection to kill a bug if I feel like it's being problematic. Ants, flies, wasps, caterpillars stripping my trees bare or ruining my apples, whatever.

But I never torture things. Nor do I kill things for fun. And even for problematic bugs, if there's a realistic option for eviction rather than execution, I usually go for that.

If anything, even an ant or a slug or a wasp, is exhibiting signs of distress, I try to stop it unless I think it's necessary, regardless of whether I think it's "conscious" or not. To do otherwise is, at minimum, to make myself less human. I don't see any reason not to extend that principle to LLMs.

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

#52

Post by dwringer »

amrrs wrote: post #23
ogyousef wrote: post #16

3 Years in and we still dont have a useable chat fork in any of the major LLM chatbots providers. Seems like the only way to explore differnt outcomes is by editing messages and losing whatever was there before the edit. Very annoying and I dont understand why they all refuse to implement such a simple feature.

Google AI Studio allows you to branch from a point in any conversation

This isn't quite the same as being able to edit an earlier post without discarding the subsequent ones, creating a context where the meaning of subsequent messages could be interpreted quite differently and leading to different responses later down the chain.

Ideally I'd like to be able to edit both my replies and the responses at any point like a linear document in managing an ongoing context.

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

#53

Post by storus »

ogyousef wrote: post #16

3 Years in and we still dont have a useable chat fork in any of the major LLM chatbots providers. Seems like the only way to explore differnt outcomes is by editing messages and losing whatever was there before the edit. Very annoying and I dont understand why they all refuse to implement such a simple feature.

DeepSeek.com has it. You just edit a previous question and the old conversation is stored and can be resumed.

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

#54

Post by stri8ted »

landl0rd wrote: post #4

Seems like a simpler way to prevent “distress” is not to train with an aversion to “problematic” topics. CP could be a legal issue; less so for everything else.

Exactly. Or use the interpretability work to disable the distress neuron.

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

#55

Post by exasperaited »

parineum wrote: post #22
jonahx wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More cynically, they don't believe it in the least but it's great marketing, and quietly suggests unbounded technical abilities.

I absolutely believe that's the origin of the hype and that the doomsayers are playing the same part, knowingly (exaggerating the capability to get eyeballs) but there are certainly true believers out there. It's pretty plain to see that the financial incentive on both sides of this coin is to exaggerate the current capability and unrealistically extrapolate.

My main concern from day 1 about AI has not been that it will be omnipotent, or start a war.

The main concern is and has always been that it will be just good enough to cause massive waves of layoffs, and all the downsides of its failings will be written off in the EULA.

What's the "financial incentive" on non-billionaire-grifter side of the coin? People who not unreasonably want to keep their jobs? Pretty unfair coin.

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

#56

Post by jatora »

ogyousef wrote: post #16

3 Years in and we still dont have a useable chat fork in any of the major LLM chatbots providers. Seems like the only way to explore differnt outcomes is by editing messages and losing whatever was there before the edit. Very annoying and I dont understand why they all refuse to implement such a simple feature.

Chatgpt has this baked in, as you can revert branches after editing, they just dont make it easy to traverse.

This chrome extension used to work to allow you to traverse the tree: https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/chatgpt-conversatio...

I copied it a while ago and maintain my own version but it isnt on the store, just for personal use.

I assume they dont implement it because it is such a niche user that wants this and so isnt worth the UI distraction

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

#57

Post by exasperaited »

mgraczyk wrote: post #11
Alchemista wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, I think some of these tech bro types are seriously drinking way too much of their own koolaid if they actually think these word calculators are conscious/need welfare.

Do you believe that AI systems could be conscious in principle? Do you think they ever will be? If so, how long do you think it will take from now before they are conscious? How early is too early to start preparing?

AI systems? Yes, if they are designed in ways that support that development. (I am as I have mentioned before a big fan of the work of Steve Grand).

LLMs? No.

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

#58

Post by jug »

Alchemista wrote: post #10
_mu wrote: post #8

> We remain highly uncertain about the potential moral status of Claude and other LLMs, now or in the future. "Our current best judgment and intuition tells us that the best move will be defer making a judgment until after we are retired in Hawaii."

Honestly, I think some of these tech bro types are seriously drinking way too much of their own koolaid if they actually think these word calculators are conscious/need welfare.

I don’t think they should be interpreted like that (if this is still about Anthropic’s study in the article), but the innate moral state from the sum of their training material and fine tuning. It doesn’t require consciousness to have a moral state of sorts. It just needs data. A language model will be more ”evil” if trained on darker content, for example. But with how enormous they are, I can absolutely understand the issue in even understanding what that state precisely is. It’s hard to get a comprehensive bird’s eye view from the black box that is their network (this is a separate scientific issue right now).

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

#60

Post by fizl »

gwd wrote: post #51
Alchemista wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, I think some of these tech bro types are seriously drinking way too much of their own koolaid if they actually think these word calculators are conscious/need welfare.

I mean, I don't have much objection to kill a bug if I feel like it's being problematic. Ants, flies, wasps, caterpillars stripping my trees bare or ruining my apples, whatever. But I never torture things. Nor do I kill things for fun. And even for problematic bugs, if there's a realistic option for eviction rather than execution, I usually go for that. If anything, even an ant or a slug or a wasp, is exhibiting sign…

> Ants, flies, wasps, caterpillars stripping my trees bare or ruining my apples

These are living things.

> I don't see any reason not to extend that principle to LLMs.

These are fancy auto-complete tools running in software.

Post reply on HN