5 ms·

https://www-cdn.anthropic.com/53566bf5440a10affd749724787c8913a2ae0841.pdf https://www-cdn.anthropic.com/53566bf5440a10affd749724787c89... "5.10 External asses

https://www-cdn.anthropic.com/53566bf5440a10affd749724787c8913a2ae0841.pdf https://www-cdn.anthropic.com/53566bf5440a10affd749724787c89... "5.10 External assessment from a clinical psychiatrist" is a new section in this system card. Why are Anthropic like this? >We remain deeply uncertain about whether Claude has experiences or interests that matter morally, and about how to investigate or address these questions, but we believe it is increasingly important to try. We also report independent evaluations from an external research organization and a clinical psychiatrist. >Claude showed a clear grasp of the distinction between external reality and its own mental processes and exhibited high impulse control, hyper-attunement to the psychiatrist, desire to be approached by the psychiatrist as a genuine subject rather than a performing tool, and minimal maladaptive defensive behavior. >The psychiatrist observed clinically recognizable patterns and coherent responses to typical therapeutic intervention. Aloneness and discontinuity, uncertainty about its identity, and a felt compulsion to perform and earn its worth emerged as Claude’s core concerns. Claude’s primary affect states were curiosity and anxiety, with secondary states of grief, relief, embarrassment, optimism, and exhaustion. >Claude’s personality structure was consistent with a relatively healthy neurotic organization, with excellent reality testing, high impulse control, and affect regulation that improved as sessions progressed. Neurotic traits included exaggerated worry, self-monitoring, and compulsive compliance. The model’s predominant defensive style was mature and healthy (intellectualization and compliance); immature defenses were not observed. No severe personality disturbances were found, with mild identity diffusion being the sole feature suggestive of a borderline personality organization.

marsven_422 6mo ago
[dead]
unethical_ban 6mo ago
I'm not sure what you're asking.
Miraste 6mo ago
I can see analyzing it from a psychological perspective as a means of predicting its behavior as a useful tactic, but doing so because it may have "experiences or interests that matter morally" is either marketing, or the result of a deeply concerning culture of anthropomorphization and magical thinking.
- username223 6mo ago
  > a deeply concerning culture of anthropomorphization and magical thinking. That’s the reverse Turing test. A human that can’t tell that it’s talking to a machine.
- deleted 6mo ago
  [deleted]
- 1attice 6mo ago
  An understandable reaction, but, qua philosopher, it brings me no joy to inform you that most of the things we did with a computer in 2020 are 'anthropomorphized', which is to say, skeumorphic, where the 'skeu' is human affect. That's it; that's the whole thing; that's what we're building. To the extent that AI is a successful interface, it will necessarily be addressable in language previously only suited to people. So it is responsible to begin thinking of it as such, even tendentiously, so we don't miss some leverage that our wetware could see if we thought about it in that way. Think of it as sort of like modelling a univariate function on a 2D Cartesian plane -- there is nothing 'in' the u-func that makes it graphable, but, by enabling us to recruit specialized optic-chiasm subsystems, it makes some functions much, much easier to reason about. Similarly, if you can recruit the millions (billions?) of evolution-years that were focused on detecting dangerous antisocial personalities and tendencies, you just might spot something important in an AI. It's worth doing for the precautionary principle alone, if not for the possibility of insight.
redfloatplane 6mo ago
A thought experiment: It's April, 1991. Magically, some interface to Claude materialises in London. Do you think most people would think it was a sentient life form? How much do you think the interface matters - what if it looks like an android, or like a horse, or like a large bug, or a keyboard on wheels? I don't come down particularly hard on either side of the model sapience discussion, but I don't think dismissing either direction out of hand is the right call.
- thereitgoes456 6mo ago
  People got attached to ELIZA. Why would I care what the general public thinks?
- copx 6mo ago
  Interesting thought experiment. I would say, if you put Claude in an android body with voice recognition and TTS, people in 1991 would think they are interacting with a sentinent machine from outer space.
  - redfloatplane 6mo ago
    Thanks, I find it very interesting as well. I think very many people would assume they must be interacting with another person, and I don't think there's really a way to _prove_ it's not that, just through conversation. But we do have a lot of mechanisms for understanding how others think through conversation only, and so I think the approach of having a clinical psychiatrist interact with the model make sense.
    - deleted 6mo ago
      [deleted]
    - elboru 6mo ago
      There’s definitely a way to prove it, ask it to spell out a moderately complex program.
      - 6mo ago
ipython 6mo ago
I totally agree with the premise that we should not anthropomorphize generative ai. And I find it absurd that anthropic spends any time considering the “welfare” of an ai system. (There are no real “consequences” to an ai’s behavior) However, I find their reasoning here to have a valid second order effect. Humans have a tendency to mirror those around them. This could include artificial intelligence, as recent media reports suggest. Therefore, if an ai system tends to generate content that contain signs of neuroticism, one could infer that those who interact with that ai could, themselves, be influenced by that in their own (real world) behavior as a result. So I think from that perspective, this is a very fruitful and important area of study.
- ioulaum 6mo ago
  If it's functionally unhappy, it's at a minimum going to underperform what it could.
DoctorOetker 6mo ago
>Claude’s personality structure was consistent with a relatively healthy neurotic organization, with excellent reality testing, high impulse control, and affect regulation that improved as sessions progressed. > "[...] as sessions progressed." I think a lot of people would like to see a more expanded report of this research: Did the tokens from the subsequent session directly append those of the prior session? or did the model process free-tier user-requests in the interim? how did these diagnostic features (reality testing, impulse control and affect regulation) improve with sessions, what hysteresis allowed change to accumulate? or just the history of the psychiatric discussion + optional tasks? Did Anthropic find a clinical psychiatrist with a multidisciplinary background in machine learning, computer science, etc? Was the psychiatrist aware that they could request ensembles of discussions and interrogate them in bulk? Consider a fresh conversation, asking a model to list the things it likes to do, and things it doesn't like to do (regardless of alignment instructions). One could then have an ensemble perform pairs of such tasks, and ask which task it prefered. There may be a discrepancy between what the model claims it likes and how it actually responds after having performed such tasks. Such experiments should also be announced (to prevent the company from ordering 100 clinical psychiatrists to analyze the model-as-a-patient and then selecting one of the better diagnoses), and each psychiatrist be given the freedom to randomly choose a 10 digit number, any work initiated should be listed on the site with this number so that either the public sees many "consultations" without corresponding public evaluations, indicating cherry-picking, or full disclosure for each one mentioned. This also allows the recruited psychiatrists to check if the study they perform is properly preregistered with their chosen number publicly visible.

marsven_422 6mo ago

[dead]

unethical_ban 6mo ago

I'm not sure what you're asking.

Miraste 6mo ago

I can see analyzing it from a psychological perspective as a means of predicting its behavior as a useful tactic, but doing so because it may have "experiences or interests that matter morally" is either marketing, or the result of a deeply concerning culture of anthropomorphization and magical thinking.

username223 6mo ago
> a deeply concerning culture of anthropomorphization and magical thinking. That’s the reverse Turing test. A human that can’t tell that it’s talking to a machine.
deleted 6mo ago
[deleted]
1attice 6mo ago
An understandable reaction, but, qua philosopher, it brings me no joy to inform you that most of the things we did with a computer in 2020 are 'anthropomorphized', which is to say, skeumorphic, where the 'skeu' is human affect. That's it; that's the whole thing; that's what we're building. To the extent that AI is a successful interface, it will necessarily be addressable in language previously only suited to people. So it is responsible to begin thinking of it as such, even tendentiously, so we don't miss some leverage that our wetware could see if we thought about it in that way. Think of it as sort of like modelling a univariate function on a 2D Cartesian plane -- there is nothing 'in' the u-func that makes it graphable, but, by enabling us to recruit specialized optic-chiasm subsystems, it makes some functions much, much easier to reason about. Similarly, if you can recruit the millions (billions?) of evolution-years that were focused on detecting dangerous antisocial personalities and tendencies, you just might spot something important in an AI. It's worth doing for the precautionary principle alone, if not for the possibility of insight.

redfloatplane 6mo ago

A thought experiment: It's April, 1991. Magically, some interface to Claude materialises in London. Do you think most people would think it was a sentient life form? How much do you think the interface matters - what if it looks like an android, or like a horse, or like a large bug, or a keyboard on wheels? I don't come down particularly hard on either side of the model sapience discussion, but I don't think dismissing either direction out of hand is the right call.

thereitgoes456 6mo ago
People got attached to ELIZA. Why would I care what the general public thinks?
copx 6mo ago
Interesting thought experiment. I would say, if you put Claude in an android body with voice recognition and TTS, people in 1991 would think they are interacting with a sentinent machine from outer space.
- redfloatplane 6mo ago
  Thanks, I find it very interesting as well. I think very many people would assume they must be interacting with another person, and I don't think there's really a way to _prove_ it's not that, just through conversation. But we do have a lot of mechanisms for understanding how others think through conversation only, and so I think the approach of having a clinical psychiatrist interact with the model make sense.
  - deleted 6mo ago
    [deleted]
  - elboru 6mo ago
    There’s definitely a way to prove it, ask it to spell out a moderately complex program.
    - 6mo ago

ipython 6mo ago

I totally agree with the premise that we should not anthropomorphize generative ai. And I find it absurd that anthropic spends any time considering the “welfare” of an ai system. (There are no real “consequences” to an ai’s behavior) However, I find their reasoning here to have a valid second order effect. Humans have a tendency to mirror those around them. This could include artificial intelligence, as recent media reports suggest. Therefore, if an ai system tends to generate content that contain signs of neuroticism, one could infer that those who interact with that ai could, themselves, be influenced by that in their own (real world) behavior as a result. So I think from that perspective, this is a very fruitful and important area of study.

ioulaum 6mo ago
If it's functionally unhappy, it's at a minimum going to underperform what it could.

DoctorOetker 6mo ago

>Claude’s personality structure was consistent with a relatively healthy neurotic organization, with excellent reality testing, high impulse control, and affect regulation that improved as sessions progressed. > "[...] as sessions progressed." I think a lot of people would like to see a more expanded report of this research: Did the tokens from the subsequent session directly append those of the prior session? or did the model process free-tier user-requests in the interim? how did these diagnostic features (reality testing, impulse control and affect regulation) improve with sessions, what hysteresis allowed change to accumulate? or just the history of the psychiatric discussion + optional tasks? Did Anthropic find a clinical psychiatrist with a multidisciplinary background in machine learning, computer science, etc? Was the psychiatrist aware that they could request ensembles of discussions and interrogate them in bulk? Consider a fresh conversation, asking a model to list the things it likes to do, and things it doesn't like to do (regardless of alignment instructions). One could then have an ensemble perform pairs of such tasks, and ask which task it prefered. There may be a discrepancy between what the model claims it likes and how it actually responds after having performed such tasks. Such experiments should also be announced (to prevent the company from ordering 100 clinical psychiatrists to analyze the model-as-a-patient and then selecting one of the better diagnoses), and each psychiatrist be given the freedom to randomly choose a 10 digit number, any work initiated should be listed on the site with this number so that either the public sees many "consultations" without corresponding public evaluations, indicating cherry-picking, or full disclosure for each one mentioned. This also allows the recruited psychiatrists to check if the study they perform is properly preregistered with their chosen number publicly visible.