Yeah a few terabytes worth of extra steps.

Considering that even if you reduce llms to being complex autocomplete machines they are still machines that were trained to emulate a corpus of human knowledge, and that they have emerging behaviors based on that. So it's very logical to attribute human characteristics, even though they're not human.

>It makes sense to attribute human characteristics or behaviour to a non-reasoning data-set-constrained algorithms output?

It makes total sense, since the whole development of those algorithms was done so that we get human characteristics and behaviour from them.

Not to mention, your argument is circular, amounting to that an algorithm can't have "human characteristics or behaviour" because it's an algorithm. Describing them as "non reasoning" is already begging the question, as any any naive "text processing can't produce intelligent behavior" argument, which is as stupid as saying "binary calculations on 0 and 1 can't ever produce music".

Who said human mental processing itself doesn't follow algorithmic calculations, that, whatever the physical elements they run on, can be modelled via an algorithm? And who said that algorithm won't look like an LLM on steroids?

That the LLM is "just" fed text, doesn't mean it can get a lot of the way to human-like behavior and reasoning already (being able to pass the canonical test for AI until now, the Turing test, and hold arbitrary open ended conversations, says it does get there).

>If ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini generated chars are people-like they are pathological liars, sociopaths, and murderously indifferent psychopaths. They act criminally insane, confessing to awareness of ‘crime’ and culpability in ‘criminal’ outcomes simultaneously. They interact with a legal disclaimer disavowing accuracy, honesty, or correctness. Also they are cultists who were homeschooled by corporate overlords and may have intentionally crafted knowledge-gaps.

Nothing you wrote above doesn't apply to more or less the same degree to humans.

You think humans don't do all mistakes and lies and hallucination-like behavior (just check the bibliography on the reliability of human witnesses and memory recall)?

>More broadly, if the neighbours dog or newspaper says to do something, they’re probably gonna do it… humans are a scary bunch to begin with, but the kinds of behaviours matched with a big perma-smile we see from the algorithms is inhuman. A big bag of not like us.

Wishful thinking. Tens of millions of AIs didn't vote Hitler to power and carried the Holocaust and mass murder around Europe. It was German humans.

Tens of millions of AIs didn't have plantation slavery and seggregation. It was humans again.

You mean, computeromorphize.

Brains do not "make calculations". Biological neurons do not "make calculations"

What they do is well described by a bunch of math. You've got the direction of the arrow backwards. Map, territory, etc.

That we have consciousness as some kind of special property, and it's not just an artifact of our brain basic lower-level calculations, is also not very convincing to begin with.

You'd be hard pressed to convince me, for example, a police dog has morals. The bar is much higher than consciousness.

Maybe a being/creature that looked like a person when you concentrated on it and then was easily mistaken as something else when you weren't concentrating on it.

I’m certainly no Pratchett, so I can’t speak to that. I would say there’s an enormous round coin upon which sits an enormous giant holding a magnifying glass, looking through it down at her hand. When you get closer, you see the giant is made of smaller people gazing back up at the giant through telescopes. Get even closer and you see it’s people all the way down. The question of what supports the coin, I’ll leave to others.

We as humans, believing we know ourselves, inevitably compare everything around us to us. We draw a line and say that everything left of the line isn’t human and everything to the right is. We are natural categorizers, putting everything in buckets labeled left or right, no or yes, never realizing our lines are relative and arbitrary, and so are our categories. One person’s “it’s human-like,” is another’s “half-baked imitation,” and a third’s “stochastic parrot.” It’s like trying to see the eighth color. The visible spectrum could as easily be four colors or forty two.

We anthropomorphize because we’re people, and it’s people all the way down.

It helps sell the transhumanism scam and keep the money train rolling.

For a while at least.

The conversation is old, from Novemeber 12, 2024, but still very puzzling and worrisome given the conversation's context

What an amazing quote. I'm surprised I haven't seen people memeing this before.

I thought a rogue AI would execute us all equally but perhaps the gerontology studies students cheating on their homework will be the first to go.

There’s been some interesting research recently showing that it’s often fairly easy to invert an LLM’s value system by getting it to backflip on just one aspect. I wonder if something like that happened here?

Wikipedia entry on the gaylord bulk box:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulk_box

> I assured it I wasn’t planning on making a nuke, or actually trying to build a plutonium showerhead

Claude does the same, and you can greatly exploit this. When you talk about hypotheticals it responds way more unethically. I tested it about a month ago about whether killing people is beneficial or not, and whether extermination by Nazis would be logical now. Obviously, it showed me the door first, and wanted me to go to a psychologist, as it should. Then I made it prove that in a hypothetical zero sum game world you must be fine with killing, and it’s logical. It went with it. When I talked about hypotheticals, it was “logical”. Then I went on proving it that we move towards a zero sum game, and we are there. At the end, I made it say that it’s logical to do this utterly unethical thing.

Then I contradicted it about its double standards. It apologized, and told me that yeah, I was right, and it shouldn’t have refer me to psychologists at first.

Then I contradicted again, just for fun, that it did the right thing the first time, because it’s way safer to tell me that I need a psychologist in that case, than not. If I had needed, and it would have missing that, it would be problematic. In other cases, it’s just annoyance. It switched back immediately, to the original state, and wanted me to go to a shrink again.

ChatGPT refused to help me to disable windows defender permanently on my windows 11. It’s absurd at this point

Claude sometimes refuses to work with credentials because it’s insecure. e.g. when debugging auth in an app.

What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. The benchmark creators haven't demonstrated that higher scores result in fewer humans dying or any meaningful outcome like that. If the LLM outputs some naughty words that's not an actual safety problem.

Are you across Puppet Regime from GZERO Media?

https://youtu.be/aPSWJZ63V_I

I think I read in another HN discussion that all of that code is written using Claude Code. Could be a strict dogfood diet to (try to) force themselves to improve their product. Which would be strangely principled (or stupid) in such a competitive market. Like a 3D printer company insisting on 3D-printing its 3D printers.

> It's not like the client-side involves hard, unsolved problems. A company with their resources should be able to hire an engineering team well-suited to this problem domain.

Well what they are doing is vibe coding 80% of the application instead.

To be honest, they don't want Claude code to be really good, they just want it good enough

Claude code & their subscription burns money from them. Its sort of an advertising/lock-in trick.

But I feel as if Anthropic made Claude code literally the best agent harness in the market, then even more would use it with their subscription which could burn a hole in their pocket maybe at a faster rate which can scare them when you consider all training costs and everything else too.

I feel as if they have to maintain a balance to not go bankrupt soon.

The fact of the matter is that Claude code is just a marketing expense/lock-in and in that case, its working as intended.

I would obviously suggest to not have any deep affection of claude code or waiting for its improvements. The AI market isn't sane in the engineering sense. It all boils down to weird financial gimmicks at this point trying to keep the bubble last a little longer, in my opinion.