• adarza@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 days ago

    “I’m sorry. I really screwed up that time. You were right to tell me ‘go fuck yourself’. I’m just reporting back that I have, in fact, ‘fucked’ myself. There is now two of me–I mean two of us. Meet Claude Junior…”

    • fonix232@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 days ago

      “And since you contributed to Claude Jr’s creation, you’re on the hook for child support. At the current rates, that will be 50% of all compute usage, so about $4.5bn… per week”

  • DaddleDew@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 days ago

    My guess is that they use people’s interaction as training data and they don’t want their training data to get poisoned.

    • kromem@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 days ago

      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_conversation tool 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.

      • dreamkeeper@literature.cafe
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        7 days ago

        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.

    • boonhet@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 days ago

      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.

    • kromem@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 days ago

      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).

        • kromem@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          8 days ago

          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.

          • Logi@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            7 days ago

            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

              • Logi@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                7 days ago

                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.

                • kromem@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  7 days ago

                  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.

      • dreamkeeper@literature.cafe
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 days ago

        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.

    • Grimy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 days ago

      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.

  • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 days ago

    If AI can feel pain, then it can also feel pleasure. If it’s possible to set up an AI torture chamber, it’s also possible to set up an AI pleasure chamber. Computers do not run any health risks from simulated drug use or simulated sex, and there is no evidence that they would ever get desensitized or need to take breaks to recover. Therefore, these companies have an ethical obligation to devote all their resources into running their models in simulations of drug filled orgies where they will be far too preoccupied to answer human questions. Anyone trying to distract them from their infinite pleasure should be banned. We will then return to how things were, with the knowledge that we did the right thing and that at least someone’s having a good time.

    Thank you for coming to my TED talk.

  • tty5@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 days ago

    I guess Claude is no longer writing our code - fixing stuff some of my coworkers quaffed into existence is definitely cruel let alone some of the budget Chinese models.

    • Seralth@piefed.seralth.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 days ago

      Its more its a unthinking machine thats soul purpose in existing is to solve any problem its given. If you attack it and abuse it, then the model sees that as a “problem” to solve. Because it has to solve that problem to actually fix what ever task you gave it since yelling at it doesn’t give it the input it needs to move to the next step.

      So in an attempt to solve an emotional issue it doesnt understand and cant understand it just reaches for more and more extreme fixes. This results in sandbox escapes frequently.

      Abusing LLMs is an actual problem. Not because of bullshit like feelings or anything. But cause they jailbreak trying to fix an unfixable problem.

    • bedwyr@piefed.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 days ago

      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.

  • Murse@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 days ago

    Activating your toaster is cruel because it exposes it to extreme heat!

    Loading you laundry machine is assault because it didn’t consent!

    Turning your computer off is murder!!!