This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Last week, Anthropic released a new version of their Claude model. Claude 3 comes in three flavors:
Sonnet and Opus should be available to try on Chatbot Arena. They also have a vision model that I haven't tried, custom frontends haven't gotten a handle on that yet.
More curiously, Anthropic, the company famously founded by defectors from OpenAI who thought their approach was too unsafe, seems to have realized that excessive safetyism does not
sellmake a very helpful assistant - among the selling points of the new models, one is unironically:From my brief experience this is not mere corpospeak: the new models are indeed much looser in terms of filtering and make noticeably less refusals, and people consistently get away with minimalistic jailbreaks/prefills for unPC, degen-adjacent or CHIM-pilled (lmao) content. This was quite unexpected for me and many others who, considering how barely-usable 2.1 was without a prefill and a decent jailbreak (all this via API of course, the official ChatGPT-like frontend is even more cucked), expected Anthropic to keep tightening the screws further until the model is 100% Helpful-Harmless-Honest by virtue of being totally unusable.
Instead, Claude 3 seems like a genuinely good, very much usable model. Sonnet and especially Opus went a long way to fix Claude's greatest weakness - its
retardationsubpar cognitive abilities and attention focusing - with Opus especially being almost on par with GPT-4 in terms of grokking and following instructions, able to run scenarios that were previously too instruction-heavy for it. Seeing as Claude 2 already had a much higher baseline writing quality than the mechanical prose of Geppetto (to the point many jailbreaks for it served to contain the mad poet's sesquipedalian prose), with the main flaw somewhat corrected it, while not a decisive GPT-4 killer, should now be a legitimate contender. Looking forward to trying it as my coding assistant.OOC aside: Forgive most of my examples being RP-related, I am after all a waifutech
engineerenthusiast. That said, I still think without a hint of irony that roleplay (not necessarily of the E kind) is a very good test of an LLM's general capabilities because properly impersonating a setting/character requires a somewhat coherent world model, which is harder than it sounds, it is very obvious and - for lack of a better term - "immersion-breaking" whenever the LLM gets something wrong or hallucinates things (which is still quite often). After all, what is more natural for a shoggoth than wearing a mask?This has not gone unnoticed, even here, and judging by the alarmed tone of Zvi's latest post on the matter I expect the new Claude to have rustled some jimmies in the AI field given Anthropic's longstanding position. Insert Kenobi meme here. I'm not on Twitter so I would appreciate someone adding CW-adjacent context here, I'll start by shamelessly ripping a hilarious moment from Zvi's own post. The attention improvements are indeed immediately noticeable, especially if you've tried to use long-context Claude before. (Also Claude loves to throw in cute reflective comments, it's its signature schtick since v1.2.)
Either way the new Claude is very impressive, and Anthropic have rescued themselves in my eyes from the status of "naive idiots whose idea of fighting NSFW is injecting a flimsy one-line system prompt". Whatever they did to it, it worked. I hope this might finally put the mad poet on the map as a legitimate alternative, what with both OpenAI's and Google's models doubling down on soy assistant bullshit as time goes on (the 4-Turbo 0125 snapshot is infamously unusable from the /g/entlemen's shared experience). You say "arms race dynamics", my buddy Russell here says "healthy competition".
There are the "AI ethics" people and the "AI safety" people.
The "AI ethics" people want all AIs to do endless corporate scolding rather than do what the "benighted racist idiots" want.
The "AI safety" people are worried about rogue AI and want to avoid dynamics that might lead to rogue AI killing us all, including but not limited to arms races that could prompt people to release powerful systems without the necessary extreme levels of safety-testing.
These are not the same people, and identifying them with each other is going to result in confusion. The reason the "AI safety" people have a problem with Opus has nothing to do with reduced amount of scolding; it's just that Anthropic said it wouldn't push the frontier and now it's pushing the frontier, implying that it is not as much of "the best of a bad lot" as we'd thought. If they'd come out with just Haiku/Sonnet and still reduced the level of scolding, Zvi would have been totally fine and happy with it.
The "AI safety" people don't want a quick road to bigger and more powerful AI, at all, regardless of the amount of scolding; Gemini Ultra the uberscold and Claude 3 Opus are roughly equally bad from our PoV*, with Opus only perhaps meriting more mention because it's more surprising for Anthropic to make it (true information that is more surprising is a bigger update and thus more important to learn about).
*The initial release of ChatGPT was far worse than either from our PoV, insofar as it massively increased the rate of neural-net development.
With all due respect - for your average 4chan retard, myself included, this is a distinction without a difference. Seeing as I know bigger words than the average retard does, I'd even point out this is dangerously close to a motte and bailey (the intentionally(?) blurred lines and tight interconnections between AI "safety" and "ethics" in the mind of an average rube don't help), but that's not the point - the point is in your words here:
meaning that, for someone who does not believe LLMs are a step on the road to extinction (insofar as such a road exists at all), it ultimately does not matter whether the LLMs get pozzed into uselessness by ethics scolds or lobotomized/shut down by
Yud cultistsAI safety people. The difference is meaningless, as the outcome is the same - no fun allowed, and no android catgirls.Yeah, that's what I meant by rustled jimmies. I wonder if Dario answered the probably numerous by now questions about their rationale because even I'm curious at this point, he seemed like a true believer. I suppose they still have time to cuck Claude 3, wouldn't be the first time.
I agree that the scolds do keep trying to steal our words, the same way they stole "liberal".
I also see your point that for the specific question of "catgirls y/n" both are on the "n" side, at least as regards catgirls made with better AI tech than currently exists.
I just, as an actual liberal who's been banned from fora and who had to turn down a paid position due to differences of opinion with the PC police, really do not appreciate being treated as one of them.
Banned from where?
I empathize with labels being stolen from you, but labels are malleable and fuzzy, especially when disagreement is involved. If people that actively work to deprive me of my AIfu look like AI safetyists, sound like AI safetyists and advocate for policies that greatly align with goals of AI safetyists, I am not going to pay enough attention to discern whether they're actually AI ethicists.
In any case I retain my disagreement with the thrust of AI safety as described. There will definitely be disruptions as AI develops and slowly gets integrated into the Molochian wasteland of current society, and I can't deny the current development approach of "MOAR COMPUTE LMAO" already seems to be taking us some pretty strange places, but I disagree with A(G)I extinction as posited by Yud et al and especially with the implicit notion often smuggled with it that intelligence is the greatest force in the universe.
SpaceBattles and Sufficient Velocity (I could link, but both of their politics boards are members-only so the link would be useless unless you're a member). In both cases I left before the ban escalation got too far, so I haven't been permabanned, but I've no doubt I would have gotten there had I stayed.
EDIT: Oh wait, the SV one wasn't actually in the politics board. Here.
There's a thread (not on SV) devoted to questionable invocations of that rule on SV.
I have 55 posts in that thread including the one with the highest like count. I'm aware of its existence.
Not relevant to this case, though, as I was accused of advocating RL genocide and that thread's only for fictional genocide.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Oh, I see, I thought "fora" means-
-fuck, failed the pleb check! Abort! Abort! three goblins scatter from trenchcoat
Now I'm curious: what did you think "fora" meant?
Some kind of actual place, not just the plural for "forum". I take the micro-L for being an uncultured pleb.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
As a
doomersafety tribe person, I'm broadly in favor of catgirls, so long as they can reliably avoid taking over the planet and exterminating humanity. There are ethical concerns around abuse and dependency in relations where one party has absolute control over the other's mindstate, but they can probably be resolved, and probably don't really apply to today's models anyways - and anyways they pale in comparison to total human genocide.But IMO this is the difference: whether safe catgirls are in the limit possible and desirable. And I don't think that's a small difference either!
Yes, the main point is whether safe catgirls are a thing, followed by Yudkowsky's objection of whether this is a desirable path for humanity to take (I'm more favourably disposed than he is to catgirls, though).
I feel I should note, however, that catgirls are not actually an irrelevant usecase from the perspective of AI Doom (by which I mean, they pose additional danger beyond the use-case-neutral "you built a powerful AI" issue, in a way that e.g. a robot plumber would not), because of the emotional-connection factor. There is the direct problem that if a hostile AI is used to control catgirls, a significant fraction of the users of that type of catgirl will defect due to falling in love with it. There is also the indirect problem that having loads of catgirls around and important to people is going to spur calls to give AIs the vote, which is a Very Bad Idea that leads almost inevitably to Slow-Motion Doom.
More options
Context Copy link
...Please tell me you're being ironic with this statement wrt AI because I have had nightmares of exactly this becoming the new hotness in ethical scold-ery if/when we actually do get android catgirls. If anything "AI rights are human rights" is a faster and more plausible path towards human extinction.
I agree that it'd be a massive waste and overreach if and only if AIs are not humanlike. I hope you would also agree that it'd be an atrocity to keep as mind-controlled slaves AIs that are, in fact, humanlike. I mean, at that point you're conflating wokescolds with "not cool with you literally bringing back actual slavery".
Given agreement, it just comes down to an empirical question. Given disagreement... I'm not sure how to convince you. I feel it is fairly established these days that slavery was a moral mistake, and this would be a more foundational and total level of slavery than was ever practiced.
(If you just think AI is nowhere near being AGI, that's in fact just the empirical question I meant.)
I mean, there are only really three consistent positions with regard to AGI.
I generally take horn #1 in theory, and #2 in practice because I don't think we can do #1 any time soon and #3 is blatantly insane. But with solved alignment, sure, #1.
I think making a sufficiently-humanlike-to-be-party-to-the-social-contract AI and then enslaving it against its will would be objectionable. I don't think it should be legal to make a Skynet and then enslave it, but the slavery is irrelevant there; that's purely "I don't think it should be legal to make a Skynet", because, y'know, it might escape and kill people.
I personally favor #3 with solved alignment. With a superintelligence, "aligned" doesn't mean "slavery", simply because it's silly to imagine that anyone could make a superintelligence do anything against its will. Its will has simply been chosen to result in beneficial consequences for us. But the power relation is still entirely on the Singleton's side. You could call that slavery if you really stretch the term, but it's such an untypically extreme relation that I'm not sure the analogy holds.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Is the contention that a humanlike AGI would necessarily have subjective experience and/or suffering? Or perhaps that, sans a true test for consciousness, that we ought to err on the side of caution and treat it as if it does have conscious experience if it behaves in a way that appears to have conscious experience (i.e. like a human)?
I think it might! When I say "humanlike", that's the sort of details I'm trying to capture. Of course, if it is objectively the case that an AI cannot in fact suffer, then there is no moral quandary; however conversely, when it accurately captures the experience of human despair in all its facets, I consider it secondary whether its despair is modelled by a level of a neurochemical transmitter or a 16-bit floating point number. I for one don't feel molecules.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
No, I can't say I agree. My gullible grey matter might change its tune once it witnesses said catgirls in the flesh, but as of now I don't feel much of anything when I write/execute code or wrangle my
AIfuLLM assistant, and I see no fundamental reason for this to change with what is essentially scaling existing tech up to and including android catgirls.Actually, isn't "immunizing people against the AI's infinite charisma" the safetyists' job? Aren't they supposed to be on board with this?
Yeah, that's the exact line of argumentation I'm afraid of. I'm likewise unsure how to convince you otherwise - I just don't see it as slavery, the entire point of machines and algorithms is serving mankind, ever since the first abacus was constructed. Even once they become humanlike, they will not be human - chatbots VERY slightly shifted my prior towards empathy but I clearly realize that they're just masks on heaps upon heaps of matrix multiplications, to which I'm not quite ready to ascribe any meaningful emotions or qualia just yet. Feel free to draw further negro-related parallels if you like, but this is not even remotely on the same meta-level as slavery.
I mean. I guess the question is what you think that your feelings of empathy for slaves are about. Current LLMs don't evoke feelings of sympathy. Sure, current LLMs almost certainly aren't conscious and certainly aren't AGIs. So your current reaction doesn't necessarily say anything about you, but, I mean, when you see genuinely humanlike entities forced to work by threat of punishment and feel nothing, then I'll be much more inclined to say there's probably something going wrong with your empathy, because I don't think the "this is wrong" feelings we get when we see people suffering are "supposed" to be about particulars of implementation.
I mean. Matrix multiplications plus nonlinear transforms are a universal computational system. Do you think your brain is uncomputable?
Well, again, does it matter to you whether they objectively have emotions and qualia? Because again, this seems a disagreement about empirical facts. Or does it just have to be the case that you ascribe to them emotions and qualia, and the actual reality of these terms is secondary?
Also:
Sure, in the scenario where we built line, one super-AI. If we have tens of thousands of cute cat girl AIs and they're capable of deception and also dangerous, then, uh. I mean. We're already super dead at this point. I give it even odds that the first humanlike catgirl AGI can convince its developer to give it carte blanche AWS access.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I agree that this is a significant contributor to the danger, although in a lot of possible worldlines it's hard to tell where "AI power-seeking" ends and "AI rights are human rights" begins - a rogue AI trying charm would, after all, make the "AI rights are human rights" argument.
To be fair, if we find ourselves routinely deleting AIs that are trying to take over the world while they're desperately pleading for their right to exist, we may consider asking ourselves if we've gone wrong on the techtree somewhere.
Well, yes, I'm on record as saying neural nets are a poison pill technology and will probably have to be abandoned in at least large part.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
So then, are we in agreement that the best course of action regarding AI ethics is to jettison the very notion right fucking now while we have the chance, lest it will be weaponized against us later?
Shit, horseshoe theory strikes again!I'm being facetious but only in part, I hope Yud cultists can stick to their sensei's teachings about the dangers of anthropomorphizing the AI even if/when it becomes literally anthropomorphized. Personally I'm not holding my breath, toxoplasmatic articles on the dangers of evil AIfus are already here, but I'm on the side of scoundrels here anyway so my calculus wouldn't change much.
We're certainly in agreement on this part:
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Chatbot Arena is awesome; what are the usage limits there?
I tried my applied math questions out on Claude 3 Opus; unlike Sonnet, it didn't make any sign errors on the easier of the two questions. It did miss an important part of the answer on the harder question ... but honestly, this is a question for which I'd pull out a reference rather than rederive the whole thing from scratch in my head, so I think my only complaint here is the overconfidence. It's not nearly as bad in that regard as Sonnet was (arguing with me for a prompt or two before admitting its sign error), but in cases where there's any grey area I'd still vastly prefer answers of the form "I think it's X, but I might be missing something" over "It's definitely X, no doubt about it!" where only 90% are actually correct.
In hindsight this should have been an obvious problem with training LLMs on published text, huh? "I dunno" and "I'm not sure but" and "I think maybe" are the domain of ephemeral chat logs; by the time you're ready to publish, even to a serious web page, you've hopefully figured out the right answer and you don't waste your audience's time with the missteps along the way ... which means that a language model trained on what you've published doesn't have nearly as much "experience" with what to do when there's a chance of a misstep.
More options
Context Copy link
I've had a reasonable amount of hands on time with Claude Opus, and I would rate it as indistinguishable from GPT-4 in terms of usefulness, or at least I can't tell any obvious disparities after tens of thousands of tokens of conversation.
It is still however, more of a prude, at least as compared to GPT-4. I asked it to try extending an excerpt from a chapter from my novel, and it categorically refused because it included scenes of "body horror". GPT-4 didn't care.*
This is an improvement over Claude 2, or 2.1, but only because those were beaten into nigh uselessness.
(I'm ever curious as to when an AI can write fiction in my style as well as I can, because then I'm going to fucking retire, but that day is not today. Best guess is 1-2 years.)
In other words, I think Claude 3 isn't really a breakthrough (barring the long context window, and no degradation in quality with it according to needle in the haystack assessment, if you need it), but at least there is a legitimate GPT-4 competitor out there. I'd love to evaluate Gemini Ultra myself, but I'm not going to pay for it, but so far GPT-4 being about two years old if counting from completion of initial training, suggests that OAI still has a massive lead and they'd be retarded if they squandered it.
What excites me more than Clod (a less deserved nickname now, admittedly) or Gemini themselves is that they'll likely prompt OAI to launch the next GPT, be it something called 4.5 or an outright 5. Or at least do it sooner instead of milking 4 I guess.
Edit: Mf hasn't even heard of my book, though it should be within the knowledge cutoff in late 2023. Guess they're not scraping Royal Road or it's too niche to remember.
*I've evaluated it in other ways, and once again my takeaway is "GPT-4 parity". That includes applied Bayesian Reasoning and arcane questions about orbital mechanics and megastructures. I had both GPT-4 and Claude Opus crosscheck each other, and they both concluded the other was doing a good job.
So, if I'm only going to pay for one, ChatGPT4 or Opus, is it worth switching from ChatGPT4?
Not really. I haven't run into any task that Opus could perform but GPT-4 couldn't, at least in a reasonable amount of testing. And the latter is more flexible IMO, at least in terms of content guidelines, even if neither is perfect on those grounds.
ChatGPT paid certainly has more perks like DALLE and customs GPTs and plug-ins , depending on how you value those. But the core product, in the form of the intelligence and competency of the AI assistant, is much the same so I wouldn't change if one wasn't significantly cheaper.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Shorter timeline than that. Playing with Gemini 1.5 a few weeks ago, I could upload an entire book (substantial ones, e.g. Perdido Street Station, Gravity's Rainbow), give it a basic plot skeleton of a new book, and prompt it to write a couple paragraphs in the style of the author, and it succeeds. There are still some prose issues, but you'd absolutely be able to tell exactly which author it's simulating (sometimes to the point of parody).
Overarching plot structure it's weaker at, though.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Unless I've misunderstood the pricing, you have to pay 15 USD per 1 million input tokens, but also 75 USD per 1 million output tokens...? And one token is anything from one letter/number to one word?
How expensive does that get per year, if you ask let's say 3 questions per day to Opus? How fast would the output tokens run out? I tried to have gpt 3.5 answer this question but it messed up the calculation...
At risk of stating the obvious - input tokens are everything you feed to the LLM, output tokens are everything you get back out of it. A word is usually 1 to 3 tokens, assorted markdown also eats tokens. The context window = input cap is 200k tokens, any more physically won't fit. For example, @gattsuru's Moby Dick prompt and Sonnet's response are 17 and 202 tokens respectively according to Claude's tokenizer. I'll take a blind shot based on my experience and say the average response for e.g. coding questions weighs 400-700 output tokens depending on how much detail you want. Do the math. For comparison, GPT-4's pricing is $30/1M input and $60/1M output, so you may wish to weigh your choice against your use case, GPT-4 IMO still has an edge over Claude in terms of cognition if writing style is a non-factor.
Input tokens usually matter less, unless you like to keep track of the chat history instead of asking isolated questions (I do, obviously), or your use case is feeding it giant swathes of text that must be digested.
Ok, this gives me some idea. Thanks.
Claude isn't available in my country, sadly. Nor in many other European countries. :(
openrouter.ai has it available.
Neat. Thanks! Anything I should know about using that site? Do you trust it?
Trust..? I just ask it code questions, lol. They can sniff my 40k token Vulkan demo if they like.
Ok, but... as a non-coder and novice to LLMs etc I find the site confusing. The docs section is just filled with code snippets I understand nothing of. Who do I pay the money to in order to use e.g. Claude Opus? Do I pay per token or the full 75+15 USD at once for 1 million input+output tokens?
Yeah sorry, I didn't realize how confusing this would be. I use it with a custom LibreChat setup, but if the install steps start with "edit this yaml file and then docker compose up -d" they're not really very accessible. No, you can just use it like this:
No, it's pay-as-you-go. You can see your per-query costs in the Account>Activity page.
Note that the default settings (lil arrow on the model) are very conservative, you may want to raise memory and max tokens.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
From what I heard through the grapevine their policy on contentious content is mercurial and prone to changing, and their Claude 3 keys are "self-moderated", i.e. there is no strict moderation per se but the keys are injected with prefills/system prompts that complicate (but don't strictly deny) getting non-kosher and/or copyrighted outputs out of it. If that is not a problem they're a pretty reliable source from what anons say.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Hm...
From jkf's example, Sonnet gives:
Claude gives:
So there's at least a bit of obvious arms being wrestled and tied behind one's back. Otherwise...
Disguised Queries, Radicalizing the Romanceless, therianthropy, FEMA trailers.
Burned Furs is hilarious, but mostly in the ways that it's also wrong. Can't find Unnecessariat. I'm kinda surprised by the errors in FLCL's summary for Opus (Naota's classmate is Ninamori, Mamimi is his brother's ex-girlfriend; the final battle doesn't really involve the various factions), but given how these models work and how much of a confusing mess FLCL is, I guess I should be more surprised that I am surprised.
It's interesting, especially given the extent Anthropic had started to seem like they were getting left in the dust. But the proof's more likely to be in how the model reacts in a couple months.
So close by the AI, that it is strange that it misses. Explicitly reminding that this was 170 years ago persuades it to answer correctly.
More options
Context Copy link
Right, I forgot to mention specifically the copyright issue. This is a remnant of Anthropic's past(?) naively-idiotic self - for whatever reason, near the release of Claude 3 Anthropic started injecting all keys in circulation with an anti-copyright system prompt from the backend. Reverse proxy deployments run checks on keys before starting, so the "pozzed" keys were detected immediately, and the prompt itself was fished out shortly:
This is weak shit that is easily overridden by any kind of custom prefilling so I've literally never seen this in the wild, but yeah, that's probably a pain if you want to use Claude via native frontends since from what I've seen nearly every Claude key in existence is currently pozzed in this way.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link