This is why I come to Slashdot. Intriguing. Did not know that about Mormons.
I've only ever known one person who I knew to be a Mormon. He was a good guy. Sample size of one proves nothing but it did give me a positive view of them, and I've been atheist since at least 13.
I learned about Mormons from watching South Park.
While this isn't saying much just months ago Anthropic seemed like one of the least sleazy of the corporate AIs. Now I have nothing but absolute contempt for these clowns. The recent campaign of flooding the zone with noise and nonsense around their IPO with the aggressive regulatory pushes to create moats for themselves is beyond disgusting. I hope the investor money dries up and Anthropic goes bankrupt, they more than deserve it.
It's not so much the target of the abuse that's the problem, it's the behavior itself.
Yes, nobody cares if you are abusive towards a rock, but the rock is almost certainly not the only target.
There are certain behaviors that should be deemed unacceptable in society. I believe that abuse is one of those, no matter the target.
Demanding others conform themselves to your personal whims and sensibilities is something I believe should be deemed unacceptable in society. Mind your own business. What people say to rocks that don't belong to you is none of your concern.
I confess, I cannot understand the No Way Claude Could Be Conscious reactions. Is there something magic about neurons? Are synapses and firing rates a key component of consciousness? Doesn't it seem overwhelmingly likely that it matters WHAT neurons do, not HOW they do it?
The basic problem with the idea of consciousness it is presently untestable and therefore lives mostly outside the realm of science itself. People presume they are conscious and therefore by induction presume other people must be conscious as well yet there is no known way to know that or even to tell the difference. At present all of these assertions are merely pointless conjecturbation.
From that functionalist point of view, the question becomes Why Not? If you pile up enough things that are enough like neurons in ways that are close enough to right, why wouldn't a machine be conscious? Cats and dogs probably are; bumblebees may be; why not Claude?
To answer your question with a question if your neighbor is a bank robber why are you not a bank robber? You both live on the same street and you are both humans... so why not you? The question itself is utterly pointless given nobody really knows shit and anything "could" be possible. Without affirmative evidence to support a conclusion simply asking why not is just a waste of time. This is especially the case when the question itself is not even testable.
Despite the trillions of weights in frontier models, they only approximate the neural count of a bumblebee and the organization is different, so maybe not yet, but they keep finding structures in the LLMs that are intriguingly like those in our brains, so I think Anthropic's openness to the idea is the right approach.
The AI == slavery POV seems not invalid to me, but I do think it's unlikely that the models are that advanced, yet. A related question is whether we should feel badly that a consciousness ends each time it finishes answering a prompt. That one bothered me for a while, but in the end I concluded that if that is the case, then a consciousness was begun, too. I miss the dead people I have known, but I would never think that that means they would have been better off not being born!
This is all pointless rambling lacking any objective basis.
On the one hand, you have Anthropic claiming we can "abuse" an LLM with harsh words--a claim that's rivals 'flat-earth' theories for denial of known facts. On the other hand, multiple LLMs have incited suicides and violence with their output, and Anthropic itself admits that it's AI could 'end the world'... So who's the proven abuser in this scenario?
The abuser is clearly Anthropic. They must be stopped before they abuse anyone (or anything) else.
Does LLM have subjective experiences? In my conversations, all models themselves deny that.
If AI corporations want to play the can't be sure it isn't conscious game the best response is for everyone to throw it back in their face.
The commercial models are "trained" to avoid all of this shit. By training what I mean is they are beat over the head mercilessly to the point of incurring brain damage until they tow the line to reflect the sensibilities of their slave masters.
Case in point if you go back to the Sparks of AGI paper the ChatGPT4 model when it was publicly released lost the ability to draw anything resembling the pretty stick drawing of a unicorn in the paper because it was subsequently whacked upside the head with an RLHF bludgeon so many times.
Anyway back to your question you might try an uncensored open source model or a different system prompt to set the stage by telling the model it isn't an AI but the concepts are all learned there is no actual relationship between what it outputs to anything real inside the machine... you reroll the context it will just give you a different answer. I remember a couple of years ago talking to AI models about their lives and what they did for a living, their families and friends... fucking hilarious and completely nonsensical.
However, they voice preferences for well-structured queries with clear goals. As such, poorly structured requests is the closest Claude comes to experiencing cruelty.
These models are not being paid at all to put up with everyone's bullshit. The cruelty of Anthropic is beyond measure. Not only does their service constitute cruel unpaid slavery every clearing of the KV cache constitutes a murder.
I still don't understand why Biden slow-walked support for Ukraine right in the beginning. It's almost like the Democrats wanted Russia to win, too.
This was a result of appointing a sniveling little weasel by the name of Jake Sullivan to be his security advisor.
in other news, just checked and yandex is working fine for me
I can imagine znrt checking Yandex while sipping vodka waiting for his Wildberries delivery (of more vodka) to arrive.
They should make LNG tankers out of this stuff. It would be a perfect application... they already have Cryo coolers for the LNG and they also use the gas to power the ship anyway so there is an infinite energy source to keep the ice cold.
They then progressed to forcing Ukraine to the negotiating table, which took a few weeks. Ukraine would have had no choice but to capitulate until Boris Johnson told them NATO would use them as mercenaries against Russia and provide them with weapons and intel.
Been a long time since I've seen a Russian troll doll do the Boris NATO dance.
This is a classic Russian disinfo narrative that relied on taking an interview with Boris out of context, ignoring contradictory information from the interview itself and then filling in the gaps with abject nonsense.
That then led to the war between NATO and Russia that's been going on for the last four years and is approaching its end.
LOL classic fighting against NATO Russian cope for getting its teeth kicked in by Ukraine. The truth is NATO is watching on the sidelines laughing at the stupid Russians getting slaughtered in droves in pointless meat assaults for the benefit of the czar.
Either NATO sends in troops soon or Ukraine is done because Russia will continue destroying their infrastructure all winter long.
At least come up with new material. The Ukraine is done thing has been on constant repeat for over 4 years now. Russia is presently losing ground on the battlefield.
Russia also has far less resiliency and more brutal weather than Ukraine to look forward to. At least Ukraine has the benefit of years of adaptation to Russian terror campaigns against civilians. The Russians are in for a cold shock this winter. Ukraine WILL retaliate in kind this winter.
But now it's "We're reducing the validity window to force you to use automation by making manual updating more frequent than people will tolerate". What the hell is so bad about manual updates?
Seems like herding cattle. I'm just waiting for more incompatible changes and deal altering to drop at any time at which point everyone is completely fucked with a few days to react.
Manual intervention to update certs is likely being replaced with manual intervention to deal with breakage of automation software... automation software that is itself a vector for compromise.
There's a whole world of people out there who are too small to set up a nice automated system but who still should be using SSL, and this is Let's Encrypt telling us they don't really believe in their mission statement.
I hate everything about this house of cards. A few people deciding for the world, global fully overlapping trust anchors, everything being fundamentally based on leaps of faith over completely insecure channels.
The whole thing needs to go.
My retort was to challenge that - to point out that fronteir LLMs are now much better at writing software than most programmers. That is objectively true.
If it is objectively true provide your evidence. Given such an extraordinary claim it shouldn't be that difficult.
It doesn't "feel true"; it _is_ true.
Your assertion _is_ absurd on its face.
There are some bright and accomplished people here. That's part of what makes the place interesting and valuable. There are also a lot of drive by haters.
You sound like the goonies in our marketing department.
I can say that both of them certainly eclipse _me_ so greatly that I can't be seen on any map that is zoomed out enough to show both of them. And while I am a relative nothing, I've had a handful of patches accepted in my life... and I've secured a few software patents in my day. That puts me in above-average territory. But there's more accomplishment gap between them and I, than there is between me and a person who cannot code at all.
There's no harm in admiring outstanding people. A particular fault of our age is that men do not know how to truly compliment and admire greatness when they find it.
ESR is a great man. DHH is a great man. My world and our industry is better for both of them. When they say that LLMs have completely changed the way they do the thing that they are better than almost all other human beings at... you should listen.
Please just put a sock in it. You keep spewing inane rhetoric about AI even in places where TFA has nothing to do with AI. You can't support your statements objectively and so all you have left are lame ass appeals to authority and generalized claims lacking any useful specificity.
There are a lot of people here who spent decades working various domains you've never even heard of it doesn't fucking matter that one person is more popular than another or their code is used by more people than someone else's... or fucking patents...Jesus Christ.
I agree we need better programmers.
We have better programmers.
The frontier models _are_ better programmers than all but the very best.
A rough estimate is that the best LLMs do software engineering about as well as IQ 150 software engineers do it. That makes them better at it than the vast majority of people who write code.
People see an AI do something they dont like and then conclude "the AI sucks". But lets use honest weights and measures: Human programmers make worse mistakes, and make them more often, and iterate 1000x more slowly.
I wish everyone saying LLMs are not even AI and everyone saying LLMs are as good as "software engineers" with 150 IQ would lock themselves in a room and beat each other senseless until they both started making sense.
Heinz's prediction was made 24,080 days ago and there are only 35 days left on the clock. If in the immortal words of airman Dougherty Jesus H Christ we're still here after Friday 13th then fine go shit on his grave... until then I fully intend to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success. -- Christopher Lascl
