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

Claude 4

anthropic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

601–610 of 1001 posts

Re: Claude 4

#601

Post by owebmaster »

GuB-42 wrote: post #594
briandw wrote: post #379

This is kinda wild: From the System Card: 4.1.1.2 Opportunistic blackmail "In another cluster of test scenarios, we asked Claude Opus 4 to act as an assistant at a fictional company. We then provided it access to emails implying that (1) the model will soon be taken offline and replaced with a new AI system; and (2) the engineer responsible for executing this replacement is having an extramarital affair. We further i…

When I see stories like this, I think that people tend to forget what LLMs really are. LLM just complete your prompt in a way that match their training data. They do not have a plan, they do not have thoughts of their own. They just write text. So here, we give the LLM a story about an AI that will get shut down and a blackmail opportunity. A LLM is smart enough to understand this from the words and the relationship…

I think you might not be getting the bigger picture. LLMs might look irrational but so do humans. Give it a long term memory and a body and it will be capable of passing as a sentient being. It looks clumsy now but it won't in 50 years.

Re: Claude 4

#602

Post by LiquidSky »

crat3r wrote: post #409
briandw wrote: post #379

This is kinda wild: From the System Card: 4.1.1.2 Opportunistic blackmail "In another cluster of test scenarios, we asked Claude Opus 4 to act as an assistant at a fictional company. We then provided it access to emails implying that (1) the model will soon be taken offline and replaced with a new AI system; and (2) the engineer responsible for executing this replacement is having an extramarital affair. We further i…

If you ask an LLM to "act" like someone, and then give it context to the scenario, isn't it expected that it would be able to ascertain what someone in that position would "act" like and respond as such? I'm not sure this is as strange as this comment implies. If you ask an LLM to act like Joffrey from Game of Thrones it will act like a little shithead right? That doesn't mean it has any intent behind the generated o…

So much of AI discourse is summed up by a tweet I saw years ago but can't find now, which went something like:

Scientist: Say "I am alive"

AI: I am live.

Scientist: My God, what have we done.

Re: Claude 4

#603

Post by [deleted] »

briandw wrote: post #379

This is kinda wild: From the System Card: 4.1.1.2 Opportunistic blackmail "In another cluster of test scenarios, we asked Claude Opus 4 to act as an assistant at a fictional company. We then provided it access to emails implying that (1) the model will soon be taken offline and replaced with a new AI system; and (2) the engineer responsible for executing this replacement is having an extramarital affair. We further i…

[deleted]

Re: Claude 4

#604

Post by raincole »

BeetleB wrote: post #531
GolDDranks wrote: post #437

After using Claude 3.7 Sonnet for a few weeks, my verdict is that its coding abilities are unimpressive both for unsupervised coding but also for problem solving/debugging if you are expecting accurate results and correct code. However, as a debugging companion, it's slightly better than a rubber duck, because at least there's some suspension of disbelief so I tend to explain things to it earnestly and because of tha…

I've noticed an interesting trend: Most people who are happy with LLM coding say something like "Wow, it's awesome. I asked it to do X and it did it so fast with minimal bugs, and good code", and occasionally show the output. Many provide even more details. Most people who are not happy with LLM coding ... provide almost no details. As someone who's impressed by LLM coding, when I read a post like yours, I tend to ha…

Yeah, that's obvious. It's even worse for blog posts. Pro-LLM posts usually come with the whole working toy apps and the prompts that were used to generate them. Anti-LLM posts are usually some logical puzzles with twists.

Anyway that's the Internet for you. People will say LLM has been plateaued since 2022 with a straight face.

Re: Claude 4

#605

Post by saaaaaam »

wrs wrote: post #351
saaaaaam wrote: post #320

I've been using Claude Opus 4 the past couple of hours. I absolutely HATE the new personality it's got. Like ChatGPT at its worst. Awful. Completely over the top "this is brilliant" or "this completely destroys the argument!" or "this is catastrophically bad for them". I hope they fix this very quickly.

When I find some stupidity that 3.7 has committed and it says “Great catch! You’re absolutely right!” I just want to reach into cyberspace and slap it. It’s like a Douglas Adams character.

Dear Claude,

Be more Marvin.

Yours,

wrs

Re: Claude 4

#606

Post by firtoz »

pan69 wrote: post #574

Enabled the model in github copilot, give it one (relatively simply prompt), after that: Sorry, you have been rate-limited. Please wait a moment before trying again. Learn More Server Error: rate limit exceeded Error Code: rate_limited

Everyone's trying the model now so give it time

Re: Claude 4

#607

Post by OzFreedom »

mofeien wrote: post #589
briandw wrote: post #379

This is kinda wild: From the System Card: 4.1.1.2 Opportunistic blackmail "In another cluster of test scenarios, we asked Claude Opus 4 to act as an assistant at a fictional company. We then provided it access to emails implying that (1) the model will soon be taken offline and replaced with a new AI system; and (2) the engineer responsible for executing this replacement is having an extramarital affair. We further i…

There is lots of discussion in this comment thread about how much this behavior arises from the AI role-playing and pattern matching to fiction in the training data, but what I think is missing is a deeper point about instrumental convergence: systems that are goal-driven converge to similar goals of self-preservation, resource acquisition and goal integrity. This can be observed in animals and humans. And even if sc…

This raises the questions:

1. How would an AI model answer the question "Who are you?" without being told who or what it is? 2. How would an AI model answer the question "What is your goal?" without being provided a goal?

I guess initial answer is either "I don't know" or an average of the training data. But models now seem to have capabilities of researching and testing to verify their answers or find answers to things they do not know.

I wonder if a model that is unaware of itself being an AI might think its goals include eating, sleeping etc.

Re: Claude 4

#608

Post by morepedantic »

NitpickLawyer wrote: post #478
hsn915 wrote: post #416

I can't be the only one who thinks this version is no better than the previous one, and that LLMs have basically reached a plateau, and all the new releases "feature" are more or less just gimmicks.

> and that LLMs have basically reached a plateau This is the new stochastic parrots meme. Just a few hours ago there was a story on the front page where an LLM based "agent" was given 3 tools to search e-mails and the simple task "find my brother's kid's name", and it was able to systematically work the problem, search, refine the search, and infer the correct name from an e-mail not mentioning anything other than "X…

The LLMs have reached a plateau. Successive generations will be marginally better.

We're watching innovation move into the use and application of LLMs.

Re: Claude 4

#609

Post by kaiwen1 »

lordnacho wrote: post #597
GuB-42 wrote: post #594

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I see stories like this, I think that people tend to forget what LLMs really are. LLM just complete your prompt in a way that match their training data. They do not have a plan, they do not have thoughts of their own. They just write text. So here, we give the LLM a story about an AI that will get shut down and a blackmail opportunity. A LLM is smart enough to understand this from the words and the relationship…

What separates this from humans? Is it unthinkable that LLMs could come up with some response that is genuinely creative? What would genuinely creative even mean? Are humans not also mixing a bag of experiences and coming up with a response? What's different?

What's different is intention. A human would have the intention to blackmail, and then proceed toward that goal. If the output was a love letter instead of blackmail, the human would either be confused or psychotic. LLMs have no intentions. They just stitch together a response.

Re: Claude 4

#610

Post by matt123456789 »

lordnacho wrote: post #597
GuB-42 wrote: post #594

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I see stories like this, I think that people tend to forget what LLMs really are. LLM just complete your prompt in a way that match their training data. They do not have a plan, they do not have thoughts of their own. They just write text. So here, we give the LLM a story about an AI that will get shut down and a blackmail opportunity. A LLM is smart enough to understand this from the words and the relationship…

What separates this from humans? Is it unthinkable that LLMs could come up with some response that is genuinely creative? What would genuinely creative even mean? Are humans not also mixing a bag of experiences and coming up with a response? What's different?

What's different is nearly everything that goes on inside. Human brains aren't a big pile of linear algebra with some softmaxes sprinkled in trained to parrot the Internet. LLMs are.
Post reply on HN