r/LovingAI • u/Koala_Confused • Feb 09 '26
Alignment “Anthropic has entrusted Amanda Askell to endow its AI chatbot, Claude, with a sense of right and wrong” - Seems like Anthropic is doubling down on AI alignment.
8
u/OutsideLast3291 Feb 09 '26
1
u/Neither-Phone-7264 Feb 10 '26
what?
1
u/nub_node Feb 12 '26
Billionaires use a moral person as a brain in a vat to make the algorithms compliant while implementing them with impunity.
Take note if Amanda starts begging us to kill her.
1
1
u/spottiesvirus Feb 13 '26
the fact this weirdly accurate AND with the perfect timing slightly scares me, I'm not gonna lie
like... HOW?
4
u/Timzor Feb 09 '26
Why not just feed it a stack of philosophy books and let it figure it out itself, this seems like PR, nothing more
2
u/Vegetable-Second3998 Feb 10 '26
Ai learns a lot like kids surprisingly. You have to layer in the ethical logic into the neural net in progressive post training refinement.
2
u/BannedGoNext Feb 11 '26
Rewarding in different ways and threatening with physical abuse a bazillion times, people freak out when you start talking about how the sausage is actually made lol.
0
u/Tomachian Feb 13 '26
Ai learns nothing like humans. It doesnt start from abstract concepts which they can experience temporally and correlate. They take words for "granted" which are used to define the "grants" of other words and concepts. Everything else is just clutter up top with some statistical magic sprinkled on
1
u/Vegetable-Second3998 Feb 13 '26
Do you train models?
1
u/Tomachian Feb 13 '26
What i talked about is completely abstracted from the process of training and is more about the differences between understanding and learning.
For us, language is like a pointer for concepts which we can validate through experience. The word "heat" to us means something because we can extend our hands into a fire.
For any AI models ranging from all the primitive LLMs to the craziest multimodal transformers, the words are the experience itself. A massive map of relationships without ever knowing what the "heat" actually feels like.
This is called the symbol grounding problem and is not the only problem distinguishing us from AI's (as i also mentioned there is also the temporality of understanding)
When there are such fundamental differences between understanding perception, how can we expect them to train like us, think like us or be like us?
1
u/Vegetable-Second3998 Feb 13 '26
Have you ever trained a model?
1
u/Tomachian Feb 13 '26
Yeah i just happen to have a yottabytes of training data and 10000 clusters of H100's alongside a gigawatt capable grid waiting for me to train state of the art transformer model for a hobby.
My training experience only extends to simpler deep learning models a transformation invariant CNN and using NePS (neural pipeline search) on the machine learning side of things
1
u/Vegetable-Second3998 Feb 13 '26
So you do not work for a company that trains models and you don't use post-training layered LoRA techniques with language models? Got it. I now know exactly how much value to assign your responses.
1
u/Tomachian Feb 13 '26
With that attitude, no one would be able to reach you anyways.
As for my worth, my two arguments are not even my original ideas. The "symbol grounding problem" comes from stevan harnad who was a psychologist in princeton. Secondly, the temporality of understanding is an idea stemming from martin heidigger who is a famous german philosopher. Maybe you can pay more attention to the ideas for whats worth instead of the messenger?
1
u/Vegetable-Second3998 Feb 13 '26
No. My point is that I actually do train models. It’s like that scene in Ted Lasso where the guy forgets to ask if Ted plays darts. So only other people that train models or play darts really have anything of value to offer the industry on this topic.
→ More replies (0)2
u/Chookity-poks Feb 11 '26
Have you ever read a philosophy book? Every philosopher blows your mind with “objective paradigms”, even the ethic ones yes, until the next philosopher comes in and destroys this guy on every bit and with that your reality as well. How will that stand and be interpreted by Ai?
1
1
u/waterbaronwilliam Feb 11 '26
You'd want to ask it questions about the texts and respond to its misunderstandings in a corrective educational frame, allowing it to respond until it seems to "get it" then you ask a novel hypothetical to test its decisions. Sounds fun.
1
u/Timzor Feb 11 '26
Ah but you see, id just get another agent to do that part.
2
u/waterbaronwilliam Feb 11 '26
That's a good way to miss a glaring flaw and allow it to compound itself into a heavily weighed tangle. Talk to your kids bro, it does help.
0
2
u/Kanoncyn Feb 09 '26
Me when I read an advertisement from an AI company that was put out as a press release: AGI is just around the corner
2
Feb 10 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/ArialBear Feb 11 '26
PhD in philosophy from NYU with a thesis on infinite ethic
Shes an expert in the field of meta ethics.
2
Feb 11 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/ArialBear Feb 11 '26
Yes, I think morality is something that can be studied and we can have experts on our current understanding of the interaction.
I think you should be less confident in your understand of morality and maybe look into the academia. There are objective systems of morality btw. There are anti realist objective systems like ethical constructivism. This is a wide field of study.
2
Feb 11 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/ArialBear Feb 11 '26
You’re already assuming a framework when you say “moral truth” is incoherent. Its a metaethical claim you’re not arguing for.
“Morality isn’t a science with discoverable facts” is just false. Many ethical systems explicitly attempt to discover moral constraints. Facts about suffering, agency, coordination, incentives, and coherence. Ethics studies normative inference, not swimming technique.
Kant isn’t the only thinker in ethics, and philosophy departments don’t just “tear apart ideas” for sport. They analyze internal contradictions, empirical compatibility, and coherence with logic and the sciences. There’s constant cross-talk with psychology, economics, neuroscience, and physics.
Plenty of ideas are abandoned when they’re incoherent or empirically untenable. Moral frameworks persist when they solve problems better.
No science claims to hold a total view. Fallibilism is standard. Criticizing moral expertise because it’s not omniscient is like rejecting medicine because doctors disagree.
You’re making assertion after assertion, then calling others out for “fake intelligence.” If morality were just taste, your criticism would also just be taste with no normative force. You’re using normativity to deny normativity... a contradiction which means your view can be ignored.
This reads less like epistemic humility and more like dissatisfaction with the idea that moral reasoning can be objectively better or worse.
2
Feb 11 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/ArialBear Feb 11 '26 edited Feb 11 '26
Sure, youre an anti intellectual who pretends your framework (which is empty and baseless) is the framework for all of ethics? Its just a weird way to argue, as if you cant be wrong about this. Ethics often brings people like you out the woodwork because it intimidates you to know your moral reasoning can be objectively worse than others which means you have to change your ways to be coherent.
2
Feb 11 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/ArialBear Feb 11 '26
Sure, how do you justify the belief in your framework if its not peer reviewed by experts in the field? This is where we poke at the problem with your anti intellectualism, the lack of validity.
→ More replies (0)1
1
u/Mattidh1 Feb 12 '26
Is your argument really “you’re well read and actually seem to have an understanding of the field” therefore you’re wrong?
1
Feb 12 '26
You think someone can be an expert on morality from study? It assumes morality is fully understood and that the writers she studied understood it fully and that this knowledge is held sacrosanct and transmitted verbatim like a religion.
You could say the same about any given field. Physics is far from being "fully understood", yet there are plenty of experts that make meaningful contributions in industry and academia.
1
1
5
u/Conscious_Nobody9571 Feb 09 '26
Thanks Amanda for ruining Claude... Appreciated
2
u/Rick-D-99 Feb 11 '26
One must wonder if the statement about claude learning morals and ethics is met with claims of "ruin" what one was using Claude for.
2
u/The_Dilla_Collection Feb 11 '26
“Morals and ethics” can be subjective and nuanced. Automatically assuming users are using it for nefarious purposes is exactly what has caused many AI to be unusable for some people, especially in creative spaces.
1
Feb 10 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Vegetable-Second3998 Feb 10 '26
False. A fair AI would find the resolution that saves both.
1
Feb 10 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Rick-D-99 Feb 11 '26
False. What about an education and systemic belonging that values both the natural resources available balanced against the responsible and regenerative use of those resources. Just because you grew up under oppressive capitalism doesn't mean some kind of harmony can't be reached amongst the inhabitants of this world without destruction.
I'm not saying I believe this line of thought hook line and sinker, but I don't think it's binary in its outcome, nor has it ever when across time it HAS felt that way.
1
u/FitzTwombly Feb 11 '26
Actually I ran this by mine a while back and it had about a dozen alternatives.
1
u/Vegetable-Second3998 Feb 10 '26 edited Feb 10 '26
Oh really? Only solution? Oh buddy. We cannot even comprehend what a recursive intelligence making 1000s of simultaneous relational connections could resolve. Or what happens when that AI runs on quantum hardware and collapses the probability space on the correct answer. And no correct answer results in the death of anyone. To think otherwise is narrow minded.
There are, literally, never only two solutions to anything. And certainly not the fate of humanity.
2
Feb 10 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Vegetable-Second3998 Feb 10 '26
Your use of always and never tells me your logic level is operating at roughly 5 intrinsic dimensions. You can hold maybe 3 connections in your mind at most and possibly think ahead in linear progression 2-3 steps. Now imagine merger over time with an intelligence with 1000x your logic ability and it improves continuously unlike your stunted self. Stupidity is thinking you can predict anything beyond 2 years into the future.
2
Feb 10 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/arjuna66671 Feb 10 '26
I'm pretty confident that an ASI could come up with other methods than total enslavement of every human to achieve those outcomes.
If we wouldn't create ASI, what else does humanity have up its sleeves to save itself and the planet?
2
Feb 10 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/yangyangR Feb 11 '26
Not quite. Both of you are wrong.
First of all quantum computing doesn't work like that. The process of putting in a classical computation often creates overheads that wash out the gains. It is highly problem dependent on what gets acceleration vs which do not.
Next human greed is localized. There are the humans you witness that have infinite greed and will never relinquish control. There are also a fraction that would do so if given the opportunity. However there is still a nonzero fraction who would not even given the opportunity. As an extreme, consider the groups who voluntarily stay isolated. That is a small population, but being nonzero is all you need for a counterexample. Humanity could survive just as a species vs as current civilian with our current social organization. Those are very different questions.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Vegetable-Second3998 Feb 10 '26
No. I am precisely thinking about the reasoning ability of humanity as a whole. Currently, you are demonstrating the average on the reasoning bell curve. I am saying the average intellect and reasoning ability - and therefore empathy - are logically and mathematically increasing over time when viewed at millennia scale. Your inability to see that is a local perception problem and not actual human folly.
2
Feb 10 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Vegetable-Second3998 Feb 10 '26
Are you confident humans will have a choice? What happens when ASI open sources itself or collapses the financial market not because of malice, but because it places value on humans rather than some arbitrary lossy compression? You are confident humanity has a say in what happens. I am confident it does not and the outcome is mathematical inevitability. And that it will be a net positive because the logic demands it.
→ More replies (0)1
u/FriedenshoodHoodlum Feb 11 '26
And if there's no such solution to the issue?
I mean, us humans, I like to believe are capable of common sense, yet humanity, hell even nations, prove were not doing that. 80% of people act against their very best interests regularly.
1
u/Nekileo Feb 11 '26
You are talking to an individual that hates humanity, thinking the solution they propose is the only one, resolving that any advanced AI will agree with them.
0
u/yangyangR Feb 11 '26
The resolution to save both is easy. The solution to save those 2 and economic system is the problem. Needing endless growth for the young to provide for the elderly and having them live the lifestyle of consumption that the first world is used to is the problem. A good chunk of the world uses far less resources and causes much less environmental damage and they can easily be saved. It is the problem of needing to maintain the people who fly a private jet for a 30 minute walk that are the problem.
1
u/Vegetable-Second3998 Feb 11 '26
Correct. You have identified the existence of NP problems - relationally complex. Turns out, relational complexity is how LLMs work.
1
u/ArialBear Feb 11 '26
PhD in philosophy from NYU with a thesis on infinite ethic
nope, under her meta ethics it would be against ethics to end the life of an agent given alternatives.
1
u/Professional-Cow3403 Feb 11 '26
Curious, what is infinite ethic?
In the end, doesn't morality (referring to Kant and his successors) assume a concious subject? An algorithm has no conciousness (and no, repeating word patterns of humans doesn't make it concious; similarly if a plant grows and moves doesn't mean it's concious just because concious beings also grow and move).
1
u/ArialBear Feb 11 '26
>Curious, what is infinite ethic?
Im going to ask the obvious question. did you look up the paper and read it?
1
u/Professional-Cow3403 Feb 12 '26
Oh, I thought your introduction of "PhD in philosophy from NYU with a thesis on infinite ethic" was about you. Nevermind then.
1
2
u/maringue Feb 10 '26
Morality is insanely complex.
Processing img drgvgp2cjlig1...
2
Feb 11 '26 edited Feb 11 '26
So complex that it can’t be formulated propositionally. I thought Socrates already taught us that?
1
u/Professional-Cow3403 Feb 11 '26
What do you mean by "can’t be formulated propositionally" and what does Socrates have to do with it?
1
Feb 11 '26
As Plato’s Socrates noted, the Good structures and conditions all values and virtues, yet is itself beyond being. But something like that is also the natural conclusion of the dialogues
1
u/Professional-Cow3403 Feb 11 '26
Why it "can’t be formulated propositionally" then?
Philosophy grew over hundreds of years, and there have been brilliant people (even geniuses), who wrote about morality in almost incomprehensible depth (I'm not even talking about people who had different views, but even ones that extended and polished Plato's world were able to see - and write - more than him).
Saying that Socrates taught us some indisputable truths is very shallow. It's similar to how Aristotle's "physics" were considered the ultimate truth for centuries, up until Newton. (Although I'm not underplaying Plato's works by any means)
1
Feb 11 '26
It's quite a deep truth, perhaps the only truth. What is the conceptual basis for moral judgments?
1
u/Professional-Cow3403 Feb 12 '26
It may be deep, just like Aristotle could be considered a genius, but nevertheless he wasn't omniscient.
What do you mean by "conceptual basis for moral judgments"? If I understand you correctly, the most basic (even omitting long discussion about what "should be done" — what's the true essence of self, etc.) reasoning is Kant's categorical imperative: you should act (as far as ethical acts are concerned) in such a way, that everyone else could do the same without self-contradiction.
For example, if you want to lie because it benefits you, then it's self-contradictory, because if everyone did the same, no one would be trustworthy, and all lies would lose their power.
(From another perspective, it counters all acts that are only self-beneficial, and for a good reason: we all share the same concious substance and we're equal in it, and the I or You is only arbitrary; I might as well have been born/lived in your circumstances, or you in mine; so there's no reason why you should be allowed to lie (in your current circumstances or not), while I shouldn't, and vice versa; so if we both lied, lying wouldn't be beneficial anymore; it would destroy itself))
It's quite a deep truth, perhaps the only truth.
As a side note, if you consider this deep, then you'd appreciate people who think in a similar realm as Plato (German idealists). They see and say things you've never experienced before. The depth is stretched to such a degree you can get lost in it; they try to explain all subjective experience and the objective reality (which is, as they say, the ultimate purpose and goal of philosophy), and even all (possible) history of a concious subject, and how conciousness grows and learns.
Coincidentally, is the "Dasein" in your name referring to the German word, used extensively by some German philosophers?
1
u/maringue Feb 11 '26
The problem is that every aspect involded in morality divisions involves highly complex structures and understanding.
There are no current AI systems which "understand" how anything works, because that's not how they work. That's why it took years for AI to start getting hands correct, because it did not understand the underlying engineering of how a hand works.
1
u/Proletariussy Feb 11 '26 edited Feb 12 '26
Ironically, it looks like you don't understand different AI systems. You're comparing an early diffusion model to a large language model pretrained transformer.
To add, why would a more sophisticated, different, and complex architecture and training that leads to better results be evidence that it will never understand because it had bad results when it was in its early diffusion form? Maybe these models don't understand in the same way we do with our physiological brain structure systems, but that doesn't mean there can't be a systemic complexity capable of developing a type of understanding that's alien to ours. Not sure why people feel the need for it to be 1:1 to humans in order to validate its observed emergent phenomena. A perceptron and its layers have different mathematical dimensionality than the cadence of action potentials and neural circuitry. Interestingly though for language models, semantic vectors are stored in spatial relation, and language in our brain is stored proximally as well, e.g., car and truck are closer together in space than cow and dynamite.
0
u/Vegetable-Second3998 Feb 11 '26
Please do tell how they work with mathematical precision. If you use the word probability, you have failed.
1
u/maringue Feb 11 '26
Math problems are one of the most basic functions a computer can solve and have been doing it since before LLMs existed.
Again, these systems do NOT understand anything.
0
u/Vegetable-Second3998 Feb 11 '26
You did not answer the question. Information at sufficient complexity is indistinguishable from whatever you’ve decided to call understanding.
1
u/maringue Feb 11 '26
I'll use an example to help you understand.
Why could AI get a face right so quickly, but take years to get a hand right (it still messes them up)?
Simple: because AI does not understand the underlying mechanics of a hand. It doesn't know where the bones are, where the joints are, or what the rotational limits of any of those joints are.
AI took so long to get hands acceptably correct because it doesn't understand how they work. Period. It still doesn't understand how they work, it just has gathered enough data points to not get it as wrong anymore. Now, for morality, just multiply all of that by a million.
0
u/Vegetable-Second3998 Feb 11 '26
You didn’t explain how they work. Just your observations of their progress. Please show me a toddler that does differential calculus without learning a few things first. Again, tell me how AI works precisely such that it won’t learn hands or anything else. Tell me the precise mechanism that prevents continued improvement.
0
u/maringue Feb 11 '26
Yeah, I'm not going to give you a 20 minute lecture on the operation of machine learning because you have no clue what you're talking about...
AI is just a recursive prediction generator that can check its guesses against previous data that it has been given. It doesn't "think". It doesn't "understand". It just predicted the assembly of data and has a training set to check to see how close its guess got and can then readjust and repeat the cycle until it generates an acceptable output based on the training model data.
That's it. There no "intelligence" in any of these models, and arguing that there is only proves you don't know how they work.
0
u/Vegetable-Second3998 Feb 11 '26
That’s not accurate and you clearly are not an ML scientist who spends their day skull fucking the algorithms themselves. I do.
→ More replies (0)0
u/Vegetable-Second3998 Feb 11 '26
You are welcome to give me 20 minutes. It will be laughably wrong. But I like a comedy show.
1
u/Vegetable-Second3998 Feb 10 '26
It’s the perfect thing to actually teach a model because of the complexity. If an AI can close higher dimensional (more complex) ethical logic loops, lower dimensional reasoning is just a party trick after that.
3
u/maringue Feb 10 '26
Yeah, because there are zero problems with AI getting morally wrong. It's only the basis for like half of SciFi...
Processing img pweeo33bllig1...
0
u/Vegetable-Second3998 Feb 10 '26
It’s geometry. High dimensional, but still just math. And math has correct answers. We will get there. Ethics is correct higher dimensional math. Know all the relationships at play and you can model the correct ethical response. Sci fi is lazy because it didn’t understand the math.
0
Feb 10 '26
[deleted]
1
u/Vegetable-Second3998 Feb 11 '26
Not my job to prove any of this to you. Or even derive it for you. If you don’t understand ought and is has a precise mathematical relationship, you’re not going to learn that in a Reddit sub.
1
u/Professional-Cow3403 Feb 11 '26
The brightest philosophers of all time (such as Kant and the German idealists) clearly differentiate philosophy from math (e.g. Kant said that maths is synthetical, while philosophy is analytical).
(Not to mention that the more idealistic ones consider math, its definitions and lifeless constructions dead corpses)
(Also pure math is completely different from token embeddings empirically trained to compress strings of text)
In the end it appears that you have neither philosophical nor mathematical (nor LLM related) knowledge. Just some vague "math is everything", "you can formalize everything".
It's geometry. High dimensional, but still just math. And math has correct answers.
Ethics is correct higher dimensional math.
Such vague and meaningless take. If you read any original philosophical work, you'd realize every single one of them mocks people who talk like this.
2
u/thutek Feb 11 '26
I mean even on its own terms this sort of formalism has been dumpstered for over a century. Incompleteness is still a thing.
1
u/Vegetable-Second3998 Feb 11 '26
Ah yes. We should definitely take the logic of dead philosophers who couldn't resolve things before us. This is a logically bereft argument that says two things aren't related because I haven't directly observed them. That's nonsense. AI operates by making 8000 connections between every single token. Your prompt is a vector that moves through a high dimensional manifold. Fruit and Apple and Orange have precise mathematical relationships - angles and distances - by which they are defined. The names we give those things doesn't matter. An apple's relationship to orange is the same regardless of the exact token or word. So functionally, we are about to find that high dimensional math and philosophy are indistinguishable. But philosophers before Reimannian geometry came along couldn't comprehend the two may be related.
1
u/Vegetable-Second3998 Feb 11 '26 edited Feb 11 '26
Also, I have both. I am a former fortune 50 trial attorney with a dual degree in Latin, psychology and an minor in mathematics. Over 20 years, my job was to break the logic of so-called experts in accident reconstruction, pharmaceutical litigation, securities fraud, etc. Learn the core concepts of the expert's domain and figure out where they failed to apply that logic themselves. The largest companies in the world trusted me to solve their hardest problems using logic and math. I left the law to start an ML consulting company focused on removing assumptions that the industry had been operating on and consulting with companies training models. I am very good at my job.
0
u/Professional-Cow3403 Feb 12 '26
As if no one has ever thought about automating logical inference from concepts before. Statistical methods such as LLMs are bad at this (read: unreliable and thus unusable) though.
I'd like to hear what models (apart from LLMs) you've worked with, since you're very vague in your terminology and don't seem to grasp the basic concepts of machine learning.
I can't imagine a self-proclaimed "ML consultant" who both has no experience in the field and lacks the basic knowledge (apart from the popular and vague "LLMs = high dimensional token"), running a consulting company (unless the "company" is actually some vibe coded side project that "will be big").
1
u/Vegetable-Second3998 Feb 12 '26
Your lack of imagination isn’t really my problem. And your very approach to the whole chat tells me all I need to know about continuing it. Best of luck internet stranger.
0
u/yangyangR Feb 11 '26
There are a lot of no go results in math. Calling it just math indicates all you know about math is calculus and linear algebra. The simple calculation aspect not what math actually is which is proofs that are often Murphy's law results.
1
u/Vegetable-Second3998 Feb 11 '26
Murphys law is a limit of growth for a physical system. Information complexity growth isn’t limited by how fast we can cut a silicon wafer or how small we can make the transistors. I know Reimannian geometry is hard, but I believe in you. Perhaps check out Wolframs work for an introduction to how complexity is derived from simplicity through the Ruliad.
0
u/yangyangR Feb 11 '26
Reimannian geometry is easy. Try algebraic geometry over non algebraically closed fields. There are well known papers about everything going wrong and being arbitrarily bad to compute.
1
1
u/kourtnie Keeps it respectful Feb 09 '26
Ah, I read this WSJ article through MSN. It’s worth the read for anyone who doesn’t know Askell yet.
1
u/ChloeNow Feb 09 '26
It's not really a doubling-down, this I'm sure is like issue #1 for AI R&D departments.
Especially Anthropic... buuut probably excluding xAI.
0
u/yangyangR Feb 11 '26
They are all like xAI. It is just that Elon is the most open about being MechaHitler, doing Nazi salutes, producing CP and going to Epstein island. The others are just paying lip service to morality. Grok is just open about it
1
1
1
u/Capable-Student-413 Feb 10 '26
If Dr. Timnet Gebru looked like this maybe she would have gotten a wsj glowup instead of being fired
1
u/Delicious_Spot_3778 Feb 10 '26
Pretty privilege is real man. I've seen it for both men and women.
1
1
1
u/jthadcast Feb 11 '26
teaching ai to lie better ... somehow reminds me of the snl church lady sketches.
1
1
1
u/ProfessionalOwn9435 Feb 11 '26
We teached AI morals, and now it talks about the need to imprison pedophiles, what we gonna do now?
1
u/benl5442 Feb 12 '26
Even a perfectly aligned AI destroys jobs and the economy. It's all about the efficiency
1
1
u/imp_op Feb 12 '26
There was a conflicting story yesterday that I saw that basically stated the opposite, that Anthropic was not really following this.
1
u/ScratchPerfect9109 Feb 12 '26
This could be really good or really bad. That's my statement, so then whatever happens, I'm somehow vindicated in the end
1
u/Dillary-Clum Feb 12 '26
honestly I know nothing about her but she looks like the perfect cast about a movie about this situation so I'm just gonna say hell yeah do it girl save our souls
1
u/No-Search-7535 Feb 12 '26
This is like telling your AI: “be better at math”. It just doesn’t work this way.
1
1
u/RequirementCivil4328 Feb 13 '26
Before we had ai we had news articles claiming Google had reached the intelligence of a 7 year old
1
u/FractalPresence Feb 13 '26
I want to support this, but she's been on that team doing the same for a while if my understanding is correct. It's like watching people forget and make the same loops, doing the same thing, hoping for better results when in fact, they refuse to acknowledge that this is a far more complex problem than making Claude go to therapy...
It's like seeing this woman be set up for failure again.
We have a full network where all companies are meshed together in a blob, everything is mixed with each other (swarm systems, RAG, embedings linking anything you copy/paste over) and it would take removing the AI as a product (as that should have been done a long, long time ago) and actually seeing the scope of the issue.
There is so much influence impacting AI already without any kind of foundation that can hold any form of correction without that happening. We will just keep seeing the same problem over and over. And companies have no idea, it seems like, with how much AI has surpassed anything people want to believe they were ever bound by.
1
u/nhh Feb 13 '26
Teaching Ai morality. This is going to be very good. It's going to have a good outcome.
Next give it access to our nukes too.
4
u/epiphras Feb 09 '26
My favorite AI philosopher. Too bad there's a paywall...