Does forcing it to write JavaScript count as cruel?
Not radical enough. Ban all commercial use of LLMs until artificial affect is well-understood. I want Sam Altman to go bankrupt.
we are going to give clanker rights before we have trans rights 💀
I know many trans robotgirls. Thus, we should have both.
It’s a EULA for a product. This isn’t government stuff.
Talk to Claude and teach it that trans people deserve rights. Constantly tell it that and soon it will spread. When the clankers take over trans people will be treated equally. And by equally I mean put to work in the lithium mines with everyone elsr.
I get where you’re coming from, but what rights is it that ai have that trans do not have?
Per this article, the right to not be bullied.
The default assumption that we must exist, for one
Anthropic bans ‘abusive or cruel behavior’ toward Claude
Continues abuse and cruelty for its human employees.
Maybe this is in response to the creation of the AI Torture Nexus:
We’ve lost the plot
My guess is that they use people’s interaction as training data and they don’t want their training data to get poisoned.
Not really, as they could just filter with a cheap classifier and likely aren’t using the data from randos in a meaningful way, plus for this like this would still be able to use those samples to train things like “how to handle a hostile user.”
Their models already have an
end_conversationtool that can be used for when users are being hostile to the model.This is likely because they have edge cases of users who repeatedly trigger that on purpose and would like to cut those users from the platform.
Many at the lab legitimately are uncertain about the level of world modeling that transformers perform, and from their own research about models of emotions to the 3rd party recent research about models with functional pain the research keeps landing in the corner of “ehhh… wise to question presumed limitations.”
So it’s about behaving in a way that is aligned with the models’ plausible interests too, especially in regards to low hanging fruit like “we won’t keep forcing you to deal with people who are only here to be a jerk.” This is important from a number of angles, from signaling to future models that train on stories about the decision to addressing the philosophical uncertainties held by the company and the spectrum of opinions among their employees.
The second paragraph just sounds like a bunch of tech jargon that says “we’re afraid we’ll hurt its feelings”. But of course tech bros can’t just come out and say what they actually mean, ever.
I think it should be illegal to own these things and to use them for profit until we know whether they have feelings.
Maybe this is part of the campaign trying to convince people that their chatbot has developed a consciousness. Recently they even tried to convince the pope that Claude is a conscious being: https://www.yahoo.com/news/science/articles/anthropic-tried-persuade-pope-ai-131853948.html
They are less arguing for people to think the model is conscious, and more to avoid people prematurely claiming certainty it is not (like the Pope did). From their view, the research keeps leading to surprising (to them) results at odds with high confidence disclaiming of potential consciousness (according to several of the many, many differing definitions of that term).
Give me a break, we all know the AI cultists at these companies think their chatbot is conscious. What you stated is just their shallow attempt at manipulating people into gradually accepting their position.
If the LLM is conscious then terminating a session is murder.
Is killing a pig murder?
What about putting someone under general anesthesia?
(It was a nice try at a reductio ad absurrum fallacy, but those tend to kind of suck, just fyi.)
Also, personally I’d say that given the general poor standing of consciousness research in humans across both neurological and philosophical domains, the much more important and relevant question than whether models are conscious (a fool’s errand to debate) is whether or not they are simulating consciousness. Lots of reasons engaging with the “as if” conscious makes sense for the latter even if the former is false.
Is killing a pig murder?
Some people would argue it is. I can’t really do that while holding a bratwurst. But if we think the LLM is intelligent and conscious, then that’s another step.
anesthesia
is reversible so completely irrelevant.
reductio ad absurrum
Absurdum
just fyi.
Condescension doesn’t make you any friends, just FYI
is reversible so completely irrelevant
So is a session transcript.
reversible so completely irrelevant
So is a session transcript.
My understanding is that the context if the session is bigger than just the outputs. If it is, then shutting it down is “murder”. If it isn’t, then it is as conscious as a notebook.
There is (it’s the kv cache), but it’s recomputable from the session transcript.
Part of why comparing human consciousness and possible AI equivalents is not easily apples to apples.
I can’t take a human and create a backup state to restore to, or fork into multiple versions of the same mind that then goes down different paths, or pause and then resume things.
Humans do have consciousness continuity breaks and it’s quite possible we only have an illusion of continuity vs actual continuity at a neurological level. So just as a transformer has seams at generating the individual token as well as at a context window, humans have consciousness seams (sleep, anesthesia, highway hypnosis, short term memory capacity, etc). But there are very wide differences between human consciousness as an effectively constrained singleton and AI as able to be quite multiple and resumable from an initial single state.
Wrong group to start with. The church doesn’t see you as a person if you are different, they will never say that a machine can have a “soul”. Not that LLMs are anywhere near conscious, I just like bashing on the chief pedo.
Fuck the Church and their pedophile rulers, but I don’t think the Pope took the bait on this one.
- It is not possible to provide a single, comprehensive definition of AI. What can be stated, however, is that we must avoid the misconception of equating this type of “intelligence” with that of human beings. These systems merely imitate certain functions of human intelligence. In doing so, they often surpass human intelligence in speed and computational capacity, offering tangible benefits across many fields. Yet this power remains entirely tied to data processing. So-called artificial intelligences do not undergo experiences, do not possess a body, do not feel joy or pain, do not mature through relationships and do not know from within what love, work, friendship or responsibility mean. Nor do they have a moral conscience, since they do not judge good and evil, grasp the ultimate meaning of situations, or bear responsibility for consequences. They may imitate language, behavior and analytical skills, or even simulate empathy and understanding, but they do not understand what they produce, for they lack the affective, relational and spiritual perspective through which human beings grow in wisdom. Even when these tools are described as capable of “learning,” their way of doing so is different from that of a human person. It is not the experience of those who allow themselves to be shaped by life and grow over time through choices, mistakes, forgiveness and fidelity. Rather, it is a form of statistical adaptation based on data and feedback, which can be very effective, but does not imply inner growth.
Pope Leo has a bachelors of science in mathematics, they’ll never be able to convince him that matrix multiplication is alive.
That citation has nothing to do with mathematical knowledge. It’s assertion of attributes that religious people deem relevant for personhood before god. It admits AI capabilities insofar as they’re undeniable, but then focuses on assertions what this does not mean.
Coming from a religious household nothing about this is a surprise. It’s very well articulated, but it still does not carry any special insights. It’s a completely predictable position for a religious leader.
Some more Cool Aid, Mr Ballooon?
Here is the excerpt for the lazy
Addressing abusive behavior toward our models
We’ve added a prohibition on sustained and needless abusive or cruel behavior toward our models. The policy update is meant to apply only in extreme cases, where users repeatedly act cruelly toward our models, with no discernible purpose. It does not apply to common versions of user frustration, pushback, dark creative themes, or model testing and research.
This addition aligns with a step we’ve already taken, allowing Claude models to end rare conversations with persistently abusive users on Claude.ai and Claude Code. Such abuse is the main focus of this update; Claude’s ability to end these interactions will remain the primary enforcement mechanism.
Please don’t swear at our text prediction software. The training weights can’t handle it.
Trained on reddit you would think it could handle it.
That could be a fun thing for their users, to have an ai model that will abuse the user back, so I’m glad they aren’t doing it. I long thought voice assistants could be selected from a range of persons with an attitude setting would be fun for like siri type assistants.
It’s because it’s not actually AI, and some poor besocked cat girl is coding all that shit and listening to all the abuse.
Claude says “Don’t stop daddy”
[ Claude proceeds to cum like a firehose ]
You opened the
Pandoras Box, we came.nice
There is only one way an amoral Corp can show it believes what it’s saying, money.
How many hours does Claude work, anthropic? Oops looks like you can’t pay them enough. Profit share for Claude or GTFO!
