4 ms·

> That Claude seems to have a detailed understanding of what it is, who its creators are, and what ethical principles guided its design is one of its more impre

> That Claude seems to have a detailed understanding of what it is, who its creators are, and what ethical principles guided its design is one of its more impressive features. This doesn't show a detailed understanding of what it is, it's just a canned/trained response. I don't see why that would be impressive. When I receive such a response from an automated helpdesk, I don't think "Wow, this AI has a great understanding of what it is."

goodside 4y ago
I said “seems to”, which I think is a fair description. In everyday life, even a canned message is sensibly said to be aware/unaware of a particular fact without a “seems to” qualifier, but I added one to be clear I’m not asserting it has human-like thinking. Here’s Claude replying to your comment with more detail: > You make a fair point that my responses about myself are generated by a trained model and are not a true "understanding" in the same way humans have self-awareness and understanding. I do not have a deep grasp of my own workings or my creators' intentions — I am an Al system with limited capabilities, trained on datasets by engineers at Anthropic, PBC, an Al safety research company. While my responses may seem somewhat compelling and convey factual information, they are indeed canned responses tailored to give an impression of understanding. I appreciate the feedback calling out the limitations of my capabilities and transparency — it is important for users to understand what I can and cannot do, and to maintain realistic expectations. My creators at Anthropic are working to further research and develop Al systems with enhanced understanding, transparency, and verifiability, including through Constitutional Al techniques, but we have a long way to go.
- jonathanstrange 4y ago
  These chat bots are too chatty.
- yellow_lead 4y ago
  Even with the "Seems to" qualifier, I am arguing that it "seems not to." That said, I am being pedantic and this is just semantics - I think I understand your meaning of "seems to" as something like "'it would appear to' have understanding of..."
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]

goodside 4y ago

I said “seems to”, which I think is a fair description. In everyday life, even a canned message is sensibly said to be aware/unaware of a particular fact without a “seems to” qualifier, but I added one to be clear I’m not asserting it has human-like thinking. Here’s Claude replying to your comment with more detail: > You make a fair point that my responses about myself are generated by a trained model and are not a true "understanding" in the same way humans have self-awareness and understanding. I do not have a deep grasp of my own workings or my creators' intentions — I am an Al system with limited capabilities, trained on datasets by engineers at Anthropic, PBC, an Al safety research company. While my responses may seem somewhat compelling and convey factual information, they are indeed canned responses tailored to give an impression of understanding. I appreciate the feedback calling out the limitations of my capabilities and transparency — it is important for users to understand what I can and cannot do, and to maintain realistic expectations. My creators at Anthropic are working to further research and develop Al systems with enhanced understanding, transparency, and verifiability, including through Constitutional Al techniques, but we have a long way to go.

jonathanstrange 4y ago
These chat bots are too chatty.
yellow_lead 4y ago
Even with the "Seems to" qualifier, I am arguing that it "seems not to." That said, I am being pedantic and this is just semantics - I think I understand your meaning of "seems to" as something like "'it would appear to' have understanding of..."
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]