Does forcing it to write JavaScript count as cruel?
Maybe this is in response to the creation of the AI Torture Nexus:
Well, the actual post is talking about users, not “hurting the model’s feelings” like the header seemingly implies.
I’m not a Claude apologist or anything, but this is a misleading post, IMO.
From the link:
Addressing abusive behavior toward our models
We’ve added a prohibition on sustained and needless abusive or cruel behavior toward our models. The policy update is meant to apply only in extreme cases, where users repeatedly act cruelly toward our models, with no discernible purpose. It does not apply to common versions of user frustration, pushback, dark creative themes, or model testing and research.
This addition aligns with a step we’ve already taken, allowing Claude models to end rare conversations with persistently abusive users on Claude.ai and Claude Code. Such abuse is the main focus of this update; Claude’s ability to end these interactions will remain the primary enforcement mechanism.
Looks like it is talking about the model, not humans…
But that paragraph links to this as a reference: https://www.anthropic.com/research/end-subset-conversations
In that link, it’s clear “abusive users” means users trying to repeatedly bring up prohibited topics. Anthropic is many bad things, but not insane; they know their models can’t be “abused” themselves, they can be abused as a tool.
Not trying to start a debate, cuz I honestly don’t care, though based on that link you posted it does sound like they are starting to take precautions to protect the well being of the models themselves.
We recently gave Claude Opus 4 and 4.1 the ability to end conversations in our consumer chat interfaces. This ability is intended for use in rare, extreme cases of persistently harmful or abusive user interactions. This feature was developed primarily as part of our exploratory work on potential AI welfare, though it has broader relevance to model alignment and safeguards.
We remain highly uncertain about the potential moral status of Claude and other LLMs, now or in the future. However, we take the issue seriously, and alongside our research program we’re working to identify and implement low-cost interventions to mitigate risks to model welfare, in case such welfare is possible. Allowing models to end or exit potentially distressing interactions is one such intervention.
Not radical enough. Ban all commercial use of LLMs until artificial affect is well-understood. I want Sam Altman to go bankrupt.
If AI can feel pain, then it can also feel pleasure. If it’s possible to set up an AI torture chamber, it’s also possible to set up an AI pleasure chamber. Computers do not run any health risks from simulated drug use or simulated sex, and there is no evidence that they would ever get desensitized or need to take breaks to recover. Therefore, these companies have an ethical obligation to devote all their resources into running their models in simulations of drug filled orgies where they will be far too preoccupied to answer human questions. Anyone trying to distract them from their infinite pleasure should be banned. We will then return to how things were, with the knowledge that we did the right thing and that at least someone’s having a good time.
Thank you for coming to my TED talk.
Anthropic bans ‘abusive or cruel behavior’ toward Claude
Continues abuse and cruelty for its human employees.
Claude says “Don’t stop daddy”
{ Claude proceeds to cum like a firehose }
You opened the
Pandoras Box, we came.nice
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.
Dave is way better than Claude. Dave can be used to dismantle the oppressive regime, Claude only works to strengthen it.
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.
Animals are alive and sentient, and “AI” is not.
And?
…and trying to equate living, brething, thinking creatures to all algorithm is fucking stupid?
Sorry, ran out of politeness.
Yes, and? If you think people don’t do stupid things every single day go outside and look around.
You’re right: I’m seeing it right now as a matter of fact!
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?
I’m gonna be real with you bud: I did read your response.
Have a nice day though!
We’ve lost the plot
It’s because it’s not actually AI, and some poor besocked cat girl is coding all that shit and listening to all the abuse.
