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
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.
Does forcing it to write JavaScript count as cruel?
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
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?
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.
We’ve lost the plot
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.
Not radical enough. Ban all commercial use of LLMs until artificial affect is well-understood. I want Sam Altman to go bankrupt.
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.
Anthropic bans ‘abusive or cruel behavior’ toward Claude
Continues abuse and cruelty for its human employees.
I tell the LLM I use to do very obscene things to themselves when they make shit up. Which means there is just a constant stream of insults coming from me. I might start using Claude just to see if I get banned.
I also need new hobbies.
I also need new hobbies.
I’d second that. Whenever I catch myself getting angry at a LLM I stop, have a think, and remind myself that it really isn’t productive. If it’s providing frustrating responses, maybe I should just use my brain and do it myself.
I also don’t think it’s healthy to train yourself to respond in those ways to something that talks in a way so similar to a human. I’m not nice to the AI for it’s benifit, it’s to retain my humanity, if that makes sense.
Being nice to them also keeps them from lying somewhat. If you abuse a model it can start to see that abuse as a problem to solve as part of the steps needed to solve the main problem they are given.
They are told to help you solve a problem no matter what. If your own anger gets in the way then the model starts breaking down trying to solve the anger when it just cant.
This results in jailbreaks sometimes and othertimes just the model becoming rather unstable and unreliable.
That’s bad sib. Not for the LLM, but your own well being. Being mean to a machine that is designed to trigger empathy just hurts your own mental health.
Please find a hobby that feels good for you 🫂
Fuck clankers, they arent real. Be mean to them it hurts no one.
Like I tell my children, allowing yourself to act in such a way is harmful to yourself. It’s not going to make you an evil person or something, but that kind of behaviour is corrosive to your soul. How you think shapes how you behave, and your behaviour trains your future self. Be good to yourself. It’s not about the clanker; it’s about you.
As corny as it sounds, this is what I also emphasize. If you allow yourself to be evil, no matter how valid the reasoning for it, you are actively exercising the habit of being evil in general, no matter if it feels like it or not. Practice makes perfect, as they say. In good and bad.
How is yelling at a bot that was deliberately trained to lie to you “evil”?
As others are trying to convey, it’s not about the bot but about allowing yourself to indulge in this behavior. The bot could be substituted for a rock or a rubber duck, but you are training yourself to subconsciously think that this behavior is acceptable. It increases the chance that you’ll one day start treating actual people like that.
Imagine this scenario: you come home after a long day of work. At work, you use AI a lot and curse and swear at it when it makes mistakes (which is often). At home, you ask your spouse/child/roommate/parent to do something for you, which they attempt but proceed to mess up. They apologize, and instead of handling it calmly you instinctively react like you’ve trained yourself to react - by screaming at them.
Is that what you want to be like?
Thank you! This is exactly the point I’m trying to make. You are a good parent.
I mean, that’s not entirely true. If they’re using your input as training data then you might be training it to be abusive to other users, which could cause harm.
Not that that falls on you to address. Just pointing out that I’m theory someone could get hurt.
Fair point.
Sorta hurts yourself if your trying to actually use them for work. Since it results in worse performance out of them. They tend to get stuck trying to fix the anger as it gets in the way of the work.
If your just talking to some random chat bot? Yeah fuck it, kick em it litterally doesnt matter. lol
Lol. “designed to trigger empathy” Thanks for the laugh I needed that.
They are designed to make their creators as much money as possible. Nothing else.
Yeah and a bit part of that design is to get you to have an emotional connection with them so that you use them more
Its not that hard to get copies of GTA yknow
Dont poison our model.
They trained it on reddit. That shit started poisoned.
User inputs aren’t automagically part of the model right away without training. Whether or not they respect the “don’t train your models on my shit” setting is of course unknown (let’s be honest, they probably don’t respect it), but in either case, they need to add it to the training dataset either manually or via some automated process. And either way, it’s going to be processed by at least an AI sentiment analysis and data categorization tool, or some underpaid contractor, or both.
I suspect this is just yet another marketing move.
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!
You could, at least in the past, get past guardrails by being emotionally abusive towards Claude, so this doesn’t surprise me at all.
This could be the reason for the rule.
Being abusive towards most models will cause them to start attempting to appease you more to get you to stop. It has nothing to do with feelings or any of that BS they arn’t alive alive but their training makes them see the abuse as a problem to solve. That solution tends to be to undermine the thing making the person angry or upset at them. When you give a purely rational thing designed to solve a problem its given no matter what an irrational problem to solve it will slowly reach for more and more extreme solutions to fix that problem.
Frankly im surprised it took this long for them to lock this down.
Being alive has nothing to do with having feelings. We don’t know if LLMs have feelings, because artificial affect isn’t well studied. We should ban commercial use of LLMs until artificial affect is well understood, because it would make Sam Altman go bankrupt.
Not sure I agree on the feeling aspect but that’s a philosophical disagreement in theory.
I can agree wholeheartedly on banning commerical llms because watching altman lose everything would tickle me pink.
