Daniel Drucker

Claude Code is not the end state of agential Claude; no one has given up on anything, I don't think.

?? Claude Code is a way station, no?

“A remarkably broad coalition rejects this path, united by a simple conviction: artificial intelligence should serve humanity, not the reverse.” Feels like this presumes not only do AIs not have minds now, but that they won’t, which strikes me as very dubious. (Or else the statement is immoral.)

I think it's mostly being passed around for sentimental reasons, because people really like the father of LaTeX and because he wrote it fairly charmingly.

I don't think so either. It's because it's extraordinarily contradicted by the evidence and yet receives a lot of attention in many places relative to its plausibility.

It's because it's a wildly false and pernicious view, no?

"a machine will never be inspired" is just bluster though

Can you elaborate on how so a little bit?

What’s the criticism here? He sounds like people who have been bad to LGBT Texans, or that he himself will be bad to LGBT Texans?

But models aren't really comparable to individual humans, but rather to large pluralities of humans, if anything.

Aw hadn’t seen it!

I think the worry is that when people see people making arguments that people never respond to but try to divert attention from, onlookers often think something worse than that it’s a serious issue, rather that the other side has weak arguments or none at all.

No matter what, the tense feels off to me. ‘Will be’ sounds way better to me than ‘is’?

I wasn't picking a fight, was genuinely curious. Thanks! :)

What is your preferred interesting way of getting it to come out that humans but not LLMs know things about the external world? Deny they have beliefs at all or something else?

It’s a good and important question and it’s good that she raises ones like them, imo.

Looks like an awesome recommendation, thanks!

Well, I think you're making a good point, though: even if they ARE Kantian directives, suspenseful storytelling just isn't dishonest or harmful.

Seems to me the issue is more with how the bot would be interpreting these directives, rather than the directives themselves. Great storytellers aren't not-helpful, harmful, or dishonest. (It's all made up — there's no special dishonesty in suspenseful storytelling, at least not obviously so.)

Presumably most very imperfect relationships are also insensitive to mild sweetening.. (if I get what it’s going for)

But... they made a bad call. They shouldn't have backed him like that.

But what really bothers me is, you won't even be able to distinguish worthwhile and improper use patterns if you aren't curious about the reality of what it is and where it's going. (Not saying you disagree of course.)

It strikes me as a pretty obviously anti-intellectual approach to take to an incredibly fascinating new technology, regardless of the behavior of the companies introducing it. The printing press had enormous negative consequences, too, but focusing on them exclusively would've also been incurious.

It doesn’t have sense perception, that’s true.

It’s very sensitive to truth, in part because of the human reinforcement training.

I'm more interested (just in my actual research interests, but also more generally) in rationality than consciousness, and I'm more inclined to say that they're rational rather than conscious. There's a hard question about the relation between rationality and consciousness, but it's hard.

www.sci.brooklyn.cuny.edu/~schopra/Per... Behold what professionalization has lost us :(

What's at issue is whether phrasing it the way it was phrased was offensive at all. I'm not seeing it.

My strong feeling is, if they're just hypotheticals (and not the really ugly, gruesome, gratuitous etc. ones), then they're not rude.

It depends on if there's a point to talking about them that way. It's an intellectually interesting question, how each individual knows of themselves that they're conscious. It's possible to phrase that with "we", but "we" still entails "EB", so I don't think that makes it any different?