3 ms·

I've been using it for the past month and I really like it compared to ChatGPT memory. Claude memory weaves it's memories of you into chats in a natural way, wh

I've been using it for the past month and I really like it compared to ChatGPT memory. Claude memory weaves it's memories of you into chats in a natural way, while ChatGPT feels like a salesman trying to make a sale e.g. "Hi Bob! How's your wife doing? I'd like to talk to you about an investment opportunity..." while Claude is more like "Barcelona is a great travel destination and I think you and wife would really enjoy it"

deadbabe 1y ago
That’s creepy, I will promptly turn that off. Also, Claude doesn’t “think” anything, I wish they’d stop with the anthropomorphizations. They are just as bad as hallucinations.
- labrador 1y ago
  To each his or her own. I really enjoy it for more natural feeling conversations.
- xpe 1y ago
  > I wish they’d stop with the anthropomorphizations You mean in how Claude interacts with you, right? If so, you can change the system prompt (under "styles") and explain what you want and don't want. > Claude doesn’t “think” anything Right. LLMs don't 'think' like people do, but they are doing something. At the very least, it can be called information processing.* Unless one believes in souls, that's a fair description of what humans are doing too. Humans just do it better at present. Here's how I view the tendency of AI papers to use anthropomorphic language: it is primarily a convenience and shouldn't be taken to correspond to some particular human way of doing something. So when a paper says "LLMs can deceive" that means "LLMs output text in a way that is consistent with the text that a human would use to deceive". The former is easier to say than the latter. Here is another problem some people have with the sentence "LLMs can deceive"... does the sentence convey intention? This gets complicated and messy quickly. One way of figuring out the answer is to ask: Did the LLM just make a mistake? Or did it 'construct' the mistake as part of some larger goal? This way of talking doesn't have to make a person crazy -- there are ways of translating it into criteria that can be tested experimentally without speculation about consciousness (qualia). * Yes, an LLM's information processing can be described mathematically. The same could be said of a human brain if we had a sufficiently accurate enough scan. There might be some statistical uncertainty, but let's say for the sake of argument this uncertainty was low, like 0.1%. In this case, should one attribute human thinking to the mathematics we do understand? I think so. Should one attribute human thinking to the tiny fraction of the physics we can't model deterministically? Probably not, seems to me. A few unexpected neural spikes here and there could introduce local non-determinism, sure... but it seems very unlikely they would be qualitatively able to bring about thought if it was not already present.
  - deadbabe 1y ago
    When you type a calculation into a calculator and it gives you an answer, do you say the calculator thinks of the answer? An LLM is basically the same as a calculator, except instead of giving you answers to math formulas it gives you a response to any kind of text.
    - AlecSchueler 1y ago
      In what ways do humans differ when they think?
      - withinboredom 1y ago
        Humans think all the time (except when they’re watching TV). LLMs only “think” when it is streaming a response to you and then promptly forgets you exist. Then you send it your entire chat and it “auto-fills” the next part of the chat and streams it to you.
        AlecSchueler 1y ago
        Wait, we went from "they don't think" to "they only think on demand?"
        xpe 1y ago
        What are we debating? Does anyone know? One claim seems to be “people should cease using any anthropocentric language when describing LLMs”? Most of the other claims seem either uncontested or a matter of one’s preferred definitions. My point is more of a suggestion: if you understand what someone means, that’s enough. Maybe your true concerns lie elsewhere, such as: “Humanity is special. If the results of our thinking differentiate us less and less from machines, this is concerning.”
        deadbabe 1y ago
        If people think LLMs and humans are equal, people will treat humans the way they treat LLMs.
- derwiki 1y ago
  The company is literally named Anthropic

deadbabe 1y ago

That’s creepy, I will promptly turn that off. Also, Claude doesn’t “think” anything, I wish they’d stop with the anthropomorphizations. They are just as bad as hallucinations.

labrador 1y ago
To each his or her own. I really enjoy it for more natural feeling conversations.
xpe 1y ago
> I wish they’d stop with the anthropomorphizations You mean in how Claude interacts with you, right? If so, you can change the system prompt (under "styles") and explain what you want and don't want. > Claude doesn’t “think” anything Right. LLMs don't 'think' like people do, but they are doing something. At the very least, it can be called information processing.* Unless one believes in souls, that's a fair description of what humans are doing too. Humans just do it better at present. Here's how I view the tendency of AI papers to use anthropomorphic language: it is primarily a convenience and shouldn't be taken to correspond to some particular human way of doing something. So when a paper says "LLMs can deceive" that means "LLMs output text in a way that is consistent with the text that a human would use to deceive". The former is easier to say than the latter. Here is another problem some people have with the sentence "LLMs can deceive"... does the sentence convey intention? This gets complicated and messy quickly. One way of figuring out the answer is to ask: Did the LLM just make a mistake? Or did it 'construct' the mistake as part of some larger goal? This way of talking doesn't have to make a person crazy -- there are ways of translating it into criteria that can be tested experimentally without speculation about consciousness (qualia). * Yes, an LLM's information processing can be described mathematically. The same could be said of a human brain if we had a sufficiently accurate enough scan. There might be some statistical uncertainty, but let's say for the sake of argument this uncertainty was low, like 0.1%. In this case, should one attribute human thinking to the mathematics we do understand? I think so. Should one attribute human thinking to the tiny fraction of the physics we can't model deterministically? Probably not, seems to me. A few unexpected neural spikes here and there could introduce local non-determinism, sure... but it seems very unlikely they would be qualitatively able to bring about thought if it was not already present.
- deadbabe 1y ago
  When you type a calculation into a calculator and it gives you an answer, do you say the calculator thinks of the answer? An LLM is basically the same as a calculator, except instead of giving you answers to math formulas it gives you a response to any kind of text.
  - AlecSchueler 1y ago
    In what ways do humans differ when they think?
    - withinboredom 1y ago
      Humans think all the time (except when they’re watching TV). LLMs only “think” when it is streaming a response to you and then promptly forgets you exist. Then you send it your entire chat and it “auto-fills” the next part of the chat and streams it to you.
      - AlecSchueler 1y ago
        Wait, we went from "they don't think" to "they only think on demand?"
      - xpe 1y ago
        What are we debating? Does anyone know? One claim seems to be “people should cease using any anthropocentric language when describing LLMs”? Most of the other claims seem either uncontested or a matter of one’s preferred definitions. My point is more of a suggestion: if you understand what someone means, that’s enough. Maybe your true concerns lie elsewhere, such as: “Humanity is special. If the results of our thinking differentiate us less and less from machines, this is concerning.”
        deadbabe 1y ago
        If people think LLMs and humans are equal, people will treat humans the way they treat LLMs.
derwiki 1y ago
The company is literally named Anthropic