• djmikeale@feddit.dk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      12 days ago

      I get where you’re coming from, but what rights is it that ai have that trans do not have?

    • FenrirIII@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      11 days ago

      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.

    • kromem@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      12 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
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          12 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
            1
            ·
            12 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

            • kromem@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              12 days ago

              is reversible so completely irrelevant

              So is a session transcript.

              • Logi@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                12 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
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  11 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.

  • DaddleDew@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    13 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
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      12 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.

  • Grail@multiverse.soulism.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    12 days ago

    Not radical enough. Ban all commercial use of LLMs until artificial affect is well-understood. I want Sam Altman to go bankrupt.

  • melsaskca@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    12 days ago

    I have a rock named Dave I use to hold my door open. Dave has no feelings, but I gave it a name. Claude has lots more than Dave but they share the “has no feelings” part.

  • gdbjr@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    13 days ago

    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.

    • Joelk111@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      13 days ago

      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.

    • hayvan@piefed.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      12 days ago

      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 🫂

        • anotherandrew@lemmy.mixdown.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          12 days ago

          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.

          • orgrinrt@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            12 days ago

            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.

  • Nouvellalia@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    12 days ago

    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!

  • ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    12 days ago

    I said from the beginning that we will get “real” AI when people start treating it as conscious, not when someone will prove that it is. Technical arguments have no place here. We can all know that the AI girlfriend is just a really good text prediction model but if society accepts it as real person it will be treated as such and granted rights. Similar thing happened to animals.

        • DudeImMacGyver@kbin.earth
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          12 days ago

          …and trying to equate living, brething, thinking creatures to an algorithm is fucking stupid?

          Sorry, ran out of politeness.

              • ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                12 days ago

                I will help you out here… When people say “I think X will happen” it’s not the same as saying “I want X to happen” or “I think X should happen”. I know the difference can be hard to grasp sometimes.

                To make it clear… I don’t think AI should be treated like it’s conscious but I think people are stupid enough to do it. This announcement from Anthropic shows that general perception is slowly moving in that direction. What seemed crazy two years ago is now being circulated like a valid idea. Get it now?