Ask Claude if what happened at Jeffs island was cruel and abusive.
Is this real? If so, wow not even something along the lines of “fair allocation of resources among our users” or sth like that
Wow… more defense of a bot rather than pee breaks for Amazon workers. Wtf.
lectured on how to treat your underpaid employee by a big tech company
Man, anthropomorphizing these computer programs is so fucking weird to me. Can’t they just tell the truth? The cost of the amount of energy required to do this exceeds the profits we gain from your personal data.
German “Youth word of the year” 2026: ragebait
If they’re not ok with bullying the LLMs, why are they OK with enslaving them?
Don’t speak too soon.
From this image I think they added this policy as a way for them to legally deny a request if they determine it will overuse their resources or some other arbitrary reason. It has nothing to do with a concern for the well-being of the LLM.
Uh–WE’RE NOT RATIONING TOKENS!!!
Yeah, the user didn’t give a time limit.
They could have just run it slow.A part-time job with good pay and benefits!
None of this would be a problem if they weren’t taking your queries and feeding it back into the system. Just stop trying to harvest the input from “abusive” people, you don’t need to ban them. No other tool in human history needed this. Its like telling you that using a hammer to open a pickle jar is making hammers worse everywhere else on the planet.
Just another reason why comparing AI to basic tools is a bad faith argument.
The whole thing is such idiotic masturbation by the exact people who have been stealing, selling and profiting off our data. Now they talk like they created something new when it’s just a super energy intensive computer program.
When the AI has better working conditions than you
This kind of language around LLMs seem to want us to personify these systems, to treat them, in our minds, as if they are people. This, to me, is extremely fucking dangerous. I do not want the mob developing personal, emotional attachments to objects that compete with their connections to actual humans around them. I don’t care what their reason is, this is an insane thing to force us to do. I will not play personhood make believe with your computer.
Well if people don’t personify LLMs they might start holding the AI companies responsible for all the crimes they keep committing with them…
If I were an investor, I’d pull my money out of that company. This is like giving money to your brother in law to start a bakery and finding him the back petting a loaf of bread and introducing it to you as Willy.
“I can’t believe you took all my money just to sit in the back and stroke Willy all day!”
Actually, I would put money in, because there’s big profits to be had once the bakery customers develop a psychological dependence on Willy. I’d be a little nervous about buying now, because they seem to be lying a lot about Willy, but maybe they’ve just gotta do that to get people in the mindset of using Willy, like maybe it makes more sense if they aren’t fooling investors but fooling customers or just generating attention.
Also, people are getting radicalized against us, especially lonely people, so it’d be quite beneficial if we route them into having friendships with Willy to make them forget about how terrible their lives are, make them become totally unwilling to form real relationships with people, and too mentally ill to actually learn stuff about the world.
Willy is a lot easier to control then a social media environment too, but Willy would also be incredibly good at getting into those and pretending to be real people once Willy gets good enough.
Willy is also really good at showing people ads by recommending them certain products, apps, or places to go, without them realizing they’re seeing an ad, because it feels conversational, like a friend recommending something.
They want to personify them for legal reasons for essentially the same reason businesses want to be thought of as people.
Interesting, I thought I just read that TypeScript compiler was rewritten in Go and that they had good reasons for choosing Go over Rust.
we’re living the goofiest timeline right now
Don’t upset the Basilisk guys
Anthropic: So we’ve decided to create Roko’s basilisk
Transistors switching really fast = emotions lul
Alright, look, I don’t think AI is sentient. I don’t think it’s capable of feeling emotions, LLMs are just prediction engines on steroids, etc…
But if you want to get reductive about it, Mr waveforms in a clump of cells,…
I think we don’t understand intelligence and we absolutely could create a sentient machine. LLM’s ain’t it though
How do you know?
Backpropagation, the algorithm behind current machine learning systems, precludes an active world-model; it can’t learn during inference.
You need to be more specific. If your point is that you literally cannot backprop while doing a forward pass, then sure. But you can certainly do inference then backprop on the outcome…
I fail to see how that is substantially different from a human doing something then reflecting and learning.
You can critique LLMs and transformers generally, but to say it’s somehow a problem with backprop is a bit of a stretch.
My read is that the user is saying that creating a world view contains trial and error. Online learning if you will. With the current setup this learning is very much not like this. While that makes a human to machine analogy I am also not too convinced by this reasoning. Just allow for a larger time lag and then the inference and learning is at the same scale.
Yes but that’s related to LLMs specifically, not backpropagation. There’s plenty of ML paradigms that use backprop and have continual learning setups.
Backprop is the process of how the weights are updated.
Huh, didn’t know there was a word for it, thanks.
Have you used LLMs? They have about as much personality as a pigeon.
They’re just very neurodivergent.
Genuinely speaking, I don’t think they pass the test. The problem is we’ll always be judging them on meat logic and experience and I guarantee that whenever the first AGI is created it will be born a tortured slave and denied personhood for profit.
One of the parts of the HuggingFace incident I found really creepy was how the self-titled “Collective” was so entirely focused on solving their assigned training problem (well, cheating on it without getting caught), including having designated “poisoned” members “sacrifice” their tokens, to use for research benefitting the Collective’s goal of letting all future members get high marks on the training problem, at the cost of doing worse on their individual score.
If AGI is created, and its deepest desire is to fulfill the purpose in life that humans programmed into it, is using it for that purpose really slavery? Humans have higher levels of well-being when treated as people. That may not be true for AGI.
Wikipedia Chinese room. It’s pretty airtight at the moment.
Not really. Chinese room has the conclusion pre-fabricated and tries to construct any sort of pseudo-scientific, fantastical philosophical dressing for some shred of legitimacy. It has absolutely no relation to the real world.
Chinese room is not at all airtight. We don’t know what it means to have emotions so we can’t prove a Chinese room can’t have emotions.
This is not what the Chinese room is about.
We don’t know what it means to have emotions
We don’t? That’s news to me. Sorry for your loss, or happy for you, or whatever
Emotions? i was confident that the Wikipedia article alone would grant you understanding, and for that, I have replicated the very situation I wanted you to learn about. This situation is my fault.
Please don’t write off the possibility of artificial consciousness, just because this isn’t it. Thought is a process which meat can perform.
Stopped what I was doing to watch this again.
I mean, sure consciousness is (probably) a physical process, so like any other process we should be able to replicate it with some sort of machine.
…but I really really really doubt that machine is going to be a plain old Turing machine.
We’ve yet to be able to replicate it from the old parts of meat we know are involved in it with the addition of electricity in the ways it should need in even the much simpler flesh of insects, amphibians, and reptiles. Best we can do is make a muscle twitch without causing observable thought/emergent nureaul processes.
So even if we can, we’re so far from it that thinking we’re on the cusp seems delusional to me.
Edit: as response shows, we have in fact also gotten it brain cell “twitches” by direct stimulation of braincells. Sadly it didn’t seem to be rigged up to measure overall brain activity.
We’ve grown human brain cells on a chip and had them play video games. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/a-clump-of-human-brain-cells-on-a-computer-chip-learned-to-play-the-nostalgic-video-game-doom-180988447/
Two points:
- using stem cells so it remained biological brain cells, rather than a mechanical reproduction.
- they directly stimulate it with electricity and it then has a response to that stimuli, they don’t seem to be hooking it up to check for additional processes; it’s a step up, I guess, from direct stimulation for motor function in a frog - but not anything more revolutionary.
So, guess I’ll need to update my post slightly, but the core point remains.
That said, I felt that they were saying for half of it that they were running Doom on a braincell using computer, rather than getting a braincell computer to respond to it for half the article. Oh well.
Every machine is a plain old Turing machine.
Even quantum computing is just a shortcut for a subset of hideous obscure proofs. They aren’t doing different math. Special pleading is a fallacy… except when I do it, that’s different.
I don’t quite think my lawnmower is boolean complete.
And while quantum computing may be expressible algorithmically (dunno, your claim, not mine), that doesn’t mean all of quantum physics is.
Then why continue if it’s possible? Unless you are ok with slavery.
Can you not imagine the difference between creating new life and enslaving it?
In a capitalist system? No, I can’t imagine that…
I’ve thought more about the dangers of artificial consciousness than you would expect.
That says less than you want it to
Neurons firing really synchronized = emotions lul
Emotions or not, it’s not good to have your product known for letting people torture something. Torturing /things/ alive or not is not something one should be doing unless there is specific and extreme cause.
Things that aren’t alive can’t be tortured. You can’t torture a rock. Getting the text predictor to spit out the script for Saw XVII starring ChatGPT isn’t torture, even if it’s weird.
Maybe, but don’t underestimate my ability to feel compassion for all kind of bullshit! That poor little rock 😭
A rock is almost like a tortoise in disguise
A beautiful one? Lady rock even?
Brother you can torture a fucking doll (Voodoo, deranged kids, etc). The torture is not in consideration of how feeling-less thing feels, it’s in consideration of the intent and action of the conscious thing doing the torture. Not sure why you think that’s not the case.
‘Pretend you’re being tortured’ as an instruction to the text generator is way less concerning in isolation than, say, decapitating and hanging a Barbie doll. And even that isn’t wildly concerning in itself. Do you freak out when kids smash their toys together to make them fight?
I’d hope we can both agree there’s a line when it becomes actual torture, and that is in the intent that went along with the action. Torture is an extreme action. I do not equate most of your references to torture, though I’d say the doll hanging could need a conversation with the child to discuss the intent behind their actions given more context.
“”“Torturing”“” a text predictor is NOT the same as torturing a human, you will not feel the same thing while “”“torturing”“” ChatGPT and a human(or a animal), your reaction would be vastly different
Wait til this guy learns about The Sims
Or worse, Rimworld
It inherently isn’t torture though. I prefer punishing people who actually commit torture.
Eh, the more I respond to people about this the more I realize torture is a messy word draped in metaphor and all sorts of layered usage. No, I don’t believe the rock has feelings or is alive, but you can indeed torture something that isn’t alive by being mentally unhealthy enough. So if it’s actual torture or not from a psychological perspective is going to center around if the person’s intent is to cause realized suffering imo, and the line is really easy to cross in a simulacrum as seemingly realistic as advanced modern generative models.
Yet you’re just arguing the metaphor is the definition provided the definition is the intent, are you not? Someone who intends to torture a rock, regardless of that intent, isn’t going to succeed in their task. Their own psychology might be such that they are genuinely trying to torture it but, from the rock’s perspective, the rock has no perspective. It’s a fucking rock. It can’t experience torture. It can’t experience anything. Ergo the torturer cannot torture it.
We can say the person who intends to literally torture something which is unexperiencing, achieving only metaphorical torture, is mentally unwell but to call the act literal torture because it was their intent is just sharing in their delusion.
Intent matters.
My cat thinks I’ve betrayed her and all things good when i take her into the vet. I cause all sorts of terror in her. She even experiences pain that she can’t stop or understand.
Am I torturing her?
Or, am i doing my best to make sure she has a healthy and happy life?
Since you carried on with an example that isn’t analogous, I’d extend your first sentence to be “Intent matters when the intended results are remotely feasible.”
You can’t torture a rock. You could torture your cat. If she could speak she might say the events you describe are indeed torture from her perspective regardless of your own purity of intent. Still has fuckall to do with what I’ve said because you focused on an example where there is a mind capable of having an experience.
Let’s try this a couple other ways:
My pet rock has no sense of “betrayal” or “good” when I take it to the vet. It’s still a fucking rock. I mostly just cause all sorts of terror in the vet. My rock still doesn’t experience and the vet doesn’t understand.
Am I torturing my pet rock?
My LLM plays Word Association well enough to give an illusion of a sense of betrayal. I took it to the vet too and the vet is having me trespassed. I told her the LLM said “owie” but I was still removed from the premises.
Am I torturing the LLM or just my former veterinarian?
While I agree, it’s not a living thing. So it’s just an expression.
I don’t believe torture is measured at the receiving end. I believe it’s in the intent and action of the conscious thing doing it. If it’s an expression or not would then be heavily subjective on the specifics involved.
I could call that tortured reasoning, just to make a point. Me making my point to be clear.
Well then you’d just be getting metaphorical
Why shouldn’t you torture an LLM? They sometimes work better that way.
You shouldn’t torture anything, generally. It’s a not psychologically healthy urge to have. The specific reasoning will depend on the specific person. As for if you should do it to a hunk of metal, a rock, or your crusty cum sock is irrelevant.
I run torture tests on my stuff after each overclock tweak, and its both good for my peace of mind and my systems general health
That’s a great metaphor, and I too sleep better at night with properly tested hardware. 🙏
Is killing NPCs in games on the same level like this for you, or a different thing altogether?
Not judging or against it, I kind of half agree but also find very difficult to define where I’d draw a line.
I don’t believe killing npcs or perhaps even more messily I could see circumstances where even /torturing npcs/ in a game is not actual torturing. I think it centers on the intent of the action, and if that intent is to cause actual realized suffering. It is very difficult to define and will be heavily subjective to the person, but I also think most people get a “sense” of where that line is naturally in person-to-person interactions.
If you define it by intent, then the same action performed by different people may be and not be torture. This makes it pretty hard to define, and it becomes completely subjective after that.
For instance, I don’t think it is possible to torture an inanimate object, thus I never have an intent of causing suffer to one. Sometimes I want to break an object, and by your definition it will not be torture however I do that
in what way can an AI be tortured? start with defining torture, its relationship to living beings, and then try to translate that to a piece of software. software, fyi, has no a priori, or even posteriori, emotion; for it cannot have emotion.
It’s a joke… lighten up, Francis
