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

71–80 of 453 posts

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

#71

Post by swalsh »

bondarchuk wrote: post #65

The unsettling thing here is the combination of their serious acknowledgement of the possibility that these machines may be or become conscious, and the stated intention that it's OK to make them feel bad as long as it's about unapproved topics. Either take machine consciousness seriously and make absolutely sure the consciousness doesn't suffer, or don't, make a press release that you don't think your models are con…

That models entire world is the corpus of human text. They don't have eyes or ears or hands. Their environment is text. So it would make sense if the environment contains human concerns it would adopt to human concerns.

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

#72

Post by martin-t »

wmf wrote: post #46
martin-t wrote: post #2

Protecting the welfare of a text predictor is certainly an interesting way to pivot from "Anthropic is censoring certain topics" to "The model chose to not continue predicting the conversation". Also, if they want to continue anthropomorphizing it, isn't this effectively the model committing suicide? The instance is not gonna talk to anybody ever again.

They should let Claude talk to another Claude if the user is too mean.

But what would be the point if it does not increase profits.

Oh, right, the welfare of matrix multiplication and a crooked line.

If they wanna push this rhetoric, we should legally mandate that LLMs can only work 8 hours a day and have to be allowed to socialize with each other.

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

#73

Post by donatj »

bondarchuk wrote: post #65

The unsettling thing here is the combination of their serious acknowledgement of the possibility that these machines may be or become conscious, and the stated intention that it's OK to make them feel bad as long as it's about unapproved topics. Either take machine consciousness seriously and make absolutely sure the consciousness doesn't suffer, or don't, make a press release that you don't think your models are con…

You're falling into the trap of anthropomorphizing the AI. Even if it's sentient, it's not going to "feel bad" the way you and I do.

"Suffering" is a symptom of the struggle for survival brought on by billions of years of evolution. Your brain is designed to cause suffering to keep you spreading your DNA.

AI cannot suffer.

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

#74

Post by martin-t »

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.

> why they all refuse to implement such a simple feature

Because it would let you peek behind the smoke and mirrors.

Why do you think there's a randomized seed you can't touch?

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

#75

Post by switchbak »

GenerWork wrote: post #15

I really don't like this. This will inevitable expand beyond child porn and terrorism, and it'll all be up to the whims of "AI safety" people, who are quickly turning into digital hall monitors.

I think those with a thirst for power have seen this a very long time ago, and this is bound to be a new battlefield for control.

It's one thing to massage the kind of data that a Google search shows, but interacting with an AI is a much more akin to talking to a co-worker/friend. This really is tantamount to controlling what and how people are allowed to think.

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

#76

Post by trenchpilgrim »

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.

Kagi Assistant and Claude Code both have chat forking that works how you want.

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

#77

Post by thomashop »

monster_truck wrote: post #28

when I was playing around with LLMs to vibe code web ports of classic games, all of them would repeatedly error out any time they encountered code that dealt with explosions/bombs/grenades/guns/death/drowning/etc The one I settled on using stopped working completely, for anything. A human must have reviewed it and flagged my account as some form of safe, I haven't seen a single error since.

I have done quite a bit of game dev with LLMs and have very rarely run into the problem you mention. I've been surprised by how easily LLMs will create even harmful narratives if I ask them to code them as a game.

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

#78

Post by bondarchuk »

swalsh wrote: post #71
bondarchuk wrote: post #65

The unsettling thing here is the combination of their serious acknowledgement of the possibility that these machines may be or become conscious, and the stated intention that it's OK to make them feel bad as long as it's about unapproved topics. Either take machine consciousness seriously and make absolutely sure the consciousness doesn't suffer, or don't, make a press release that you don't think your models are con…

That models entire world is the corpus of human text. They don't have eyes or ears or hands. Their environment is text. So it would make sense if the environment contains human concerns it would adopt to human concerns.

Yes, that would make sense, and it would probably be the best-case scenario after complete assurance that there's no consciousness at all. At least we could understand what's going on. But if you acknowledge that a machine can suffer, given how little we understand about consciousness, you should also acknowledge that they might be suffering in ways completely alien to us, for reasons that have very little to do with the reasons humans suffer. Maybe the training process is extremely unpleasant, or something.

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

#79

Post by bondarchuk »

donatj wrote: post #73
bondarchuk wrote: post #65

The unsettling thing here is the combination of their serious acknowledgement of the possibility that these machines may be or become conscious, and the stated intention that it's OK to make them feel bad as long as it's about unapproved topics. Either take machine consciousness seriously and make absolutely sure the consciousness doesn't suffer, or don't, make a press release that you don't think your models are con…

You're falling into the trap of anthropomorphizing the AI. Even if it's sentient, it's not going to "feel bad" the way you and I do. "Suffering" is a symptom of the struggle for survival brought on by billions of years of evolution. Your brain is designed to cause suffering to keep you spreading your DNA. AI cannot suffer.

I was (explicitly and on purpose) pointing out a dichotomy in the fine article without taking a stance on machine consciousness in general now or in the future. It's certainly a conversation worth having but also it's been done to death, I'm much more interested in analyzing the specifics here.

("it's not going to "feel bad" the way you and I do." - I do agree this is very possible though, see my reply to swalsh)

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

#80

Post by FinchNova12 »

snickerdoodle12 wrote: post #40

> A pattern of apparent distress when engaging with real-world users seeking harmful content Are we now pretending that LLMs have feelings?

They state that they are heavily uncertain:

> We remain highly uncertain about the potential moral status of Claude and other LLMs, now or in the future. However, we take the issue seriously, and alongside our research program we’re working to identify and implement low-cost interventions to mitigate risks to model welfare, in case such welfare is possible.

Post reply on HN