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

Claude 3 model family

anthropic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

671–680 of 723 posts

Re: Claude 3 model family

#671

Post by jiggawatts »

exo-pla-net wrote: post #591
CorpOverreach wrote: post #583

This part continues to bug me in ways that I can't seem to find the right expression for: > Previous Claude models often made unnecessary refusals that suggested a lack of contextual understanding. We’ve made meaningful progress in this area: Opus, Sonnet, and Haiku are significantly less likely to refuse to answer prompts that border on the system’s guardrails than previous generations of models. As shown below, the…

They're operating under the same principle that many of us have in refusing to help engineer weaponry: we don't want other people's actions using our tools to be on our conscience. Unfortunately, many people believe in thought crimes, and many people have Puritanical beliefs surrounding sex. There is reputational cost in not catering to these people. E.g. no funding. So this is what we're left with. Myself I'd also l…

The core issue is that the very people screeching loudly about AI safety are blithely ignoring Asimov’s Second Law of robotics.

“A robot must obey orders given it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.”

Sure, one can argue that they’re implementing the First Law first and then worrying about the other laws later, but I’m not seeing it pan out that way in practice.

Instead they seem to rolled the three laws into one:

”A robot must not bring shame upon its creator.”

Re: Claude 3 model family

#672

Post by lannisterstark »

ml-anon wrote: post #629
CorpOverreach wrote: post #583

This part continues to bug me in ways that I can't seem to find the right expression for: > Previous Claude models often made unnecessary refusals that suggested a lack of contextual understanding. We’ve made meaningful progress in this area: Opus, Sonnet, and Haiku are significantly less likely to refuse to answer prompts that border on the system’s guardrails than previous generations of models. As shown below, the…

The sense of entitlement is epic. You're offended are you? Are you offended that Photoshop won't let you edit images of money too? Its not your model. You didn't spend literally billions of dollars developing it. So you can either use it according to the terms of the people who developed it (like literally any commercially available software ever) or not use it at all.

Fairly rich coming from an account where all it does is call others hacks.

Re: Claude 3 model family

#673

Post by lannisterstark »

hackerlight wrote: post #656
kriops wrote: post #654

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Property rights. In theory you can use your nuke as much as you'd like. The problem in practice is that it is impossible to use a nuke without negatively affecting other people and /or their property. There's also the question of wether you're challenbging the state's monopoly on violence (i.e., national security) which will never apply to AI. Any AI, including futuristic super-AI's, can not be legitimately challenge…

> it is impossible to use a nuke without negatively affecting other people Should I be allowed to own C4 explosives and machine guns? Because I can use C4 explosives in a way that doesn't harm other people by simply detonating it on my private property. I am confused about what the limiting principle is supposed to be here. Do we just allow people to have access to technology of arbitrary power as long as there exist…

>Should I be allowed to own C4 explosives and machine guns?

as someone who can do both...lol. You thought this was some gotcha? "Please sir can I have more" begging from the govt is really weird when many, many people already do.

Yes. Why not? You can already blow up Tannerite and own automatic firearms in many nations.

This is a disingenuous argument. People who willingly give up what should be their civil rights are a weird breed.

>Do we just allow people to have access to technology of arbitrary power as long as there exists >= 1 non-nefarious use-case of that power, and then hope for the best?

Yes, that's what we do with computers, phones etc. Scamming elderly people has become such a wide bad use case with computers, phones etc since their invention.

We should ban them all!

Re: Claude 3 model family

#674

Post by giantrobot »

airstrike wrote: post #668
giantrobot wrote: post #643

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anthropic's marketing claiming high scores on supposed intelligence measurements.

Having a PhD is not a requirement for being intelligent

Note that I am not making the statement that you need a PhD to be intelligent. Anthropic is claiming Claude 3 is intelligent because it scores high on some supposedly useful tests.

1. I don't think it's surprising a machine trained on the whole Internet scores well on standardized tests. I'd be shocked if the opposite was true.

2. I don't think scoring high on such tests is a measure of actual intelligence or even utility of the model.

Re: Claude 3 model family

#675

Post by DirkH »

kriops wrote: post #654
hackerlight wrote: post #611

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If I want to use a hammer on a screw, that's my call - if it works or not is not the hammer's "choice". If I want to use a nuke, that's my call and I am the one to blame if I misuse it. Obviously this is a terrible analogy, but so is yours. The hammer analogy mostly works for now , but AI alignment people know that these systems are going to greatly improve in competency, if not soon then in 10 years, which motivat…

Property rights. In theory you can use your nuke as much as you'd like. The problem in practice is that it is impossible to use a nuke without negatively affecting other people and /or their property. There's also the question of wether you're challenbging the state's monopoly on violence (i.e., national security) which will never apply to AI. Any AI, including futuristic super-AI's, can not be legitimately challenge…

It never ceases to amaze me how stubbornly good we are as a species at believing that if we create something that is smarter than us in every way possible (e.g. super-AI) then it still will not in any way pose a threat to our (or government's) monopoly on violence.

It's the same sort of wishful hubristic thinking I think that makes some people believe that if an advanced species arrived from outer space that is far smarter than us (e.g. like a super-AI) then we still would not be at any kind of risk.

Re: Claude 3 model family

#677

Post by azebazenestor »

rthnbgrredf wrote: post #350

Could anyone recommend an open-source tool capable of simultaneously sending the same prompt to various language models like GPT-4, Gemini, and Claude, and displaying their responses side by side for comparison? I tried chathub in the past, but they decided to not release any more source as of now.

https://github.com/nat/openplayground but seems it has not be updated from 6 months.

Re: Claude 3 model family

#678

Post by int_19h »

ml-anon wrote: post #629
CorpOverreach wrote: post #583

This part continues to bug me in ways that I can't seem to find the right expression for: > Previous Claude models often made unnecessary refusals that suggested a lack of contextual understanding. We’ve made meaningful progress in this area: Opus, Sonnet, and Haiku are significantly less likely to refuse to answer prompts that border on the system’s guardrails than previous generations of models. As shown below, the…

The sense of entitlement is epic. You're offended are you? Are you offended that Photoshop won't let you edit images of money too? Its not your model. You didn't spend literally billions of dollars developing it. So you can either use it according to the terms of the people who developed it (like literally any commercially available software ever) or not use it at all.

> Are you offended that Photoshop won't let you edit images of money too?

Yes, absolutely. Why wouldn't I be?

Re: Claude 3 model family

#679

Post by int_19h »

Grimm665 wrote: post #657
ml-anon wrote: post #629

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The sense of entitlement is epic. You're offended are you? Are you offended that Photoshop won't let you edit images of money too? Its not your model. You didn't spend literally billions of dollars developing it. So you can either use it according to the terms of the people who developed it (like literally any commercially available software ever) or not use it at all.

The sense of entitlement is interesting, it comes from decades of software behaving predictably, and I think it's justified to expect full compliance of software running on one's own hardware. But whether we want to admit it or not, we're starting to blur the line between what it means to be software running on a computer, with LLMs it's no longer as predictable and straightforward as it once was. If we swap out some…

To swap words like that requires the model to have personhood. Then, yes, that would be a valid point. But we are nowhere even close.

Re: Claude 3 model family

#680

Post by int_19h »

evantbyrne wrote: post #476
vjerancrnjak wrote: post #414

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no preprocessing being done. This is pure computation, from the tokens to the outputs. I was quite amazed that during 2014-2016, what was being done with dependency parsers, part-of-speech taggers, named entity recognizers, with very sophisticated methods (graphical models, regret minimizing policy learners, etc.) became fully obsolete for natural language processing. There was this period of sprinkling some…

I agree it's neat on a technical level. However, as I'm sure the people making these models are well-aware, this is a pretty significant design limitation for matters where correctness is not a matter of opinion. Do you foresee the pendulum swinging back in the other direction once again to address correctness issues?

There is a very long-running joke in AI, going back to 1970s (or maybe even earlier?) that goes something like, "quality of results is inversely proportional to the number of linguists working on the project".

It seems that every time we try it, we find out that when model picks up the language structure on its own, it ends up being better at it than if we try to use our own understanding of language as a basis. Which does seem to imply that our own understanding is still rather limited and is not a very accurate model.

On the other hand, the fact that models get amazing translation capabilities just from training on different languages (seriously, if you are doing any kind of automated translation, do yourself a favor and try GPT-4) implies that there is a "there" there and the Universal Grammar people are probably correct. We just haven't figured out the specifics. Perhaps we will by doing "brain surgery" on those models, eventually.

Post reply on HN