4 ms·
Exactly that. I can give an example. After watching Legal Eagle, I asked a legal-ish questions about the Bricks and Minifigs case. Claude was outdated about th
by whstl 4mo ago
Exactly that. I can give an example.
After watching Legal Eagle, I asked a legal-ish questions about the Bricks and Minifigs case. Claude was outdated about the case and gave me some outdated info, so I tried to update it with the info I just saw online.
I updated by telling it I saw something in a LegalEagle video. It proceeded to tell me the video doesn't exist and I was hallucinating it, in a quite combative manner.
I provided a link and it insisted it didn't exist, with a quite verbose answer, once again very combative and arguing that I was talking in bad faith.
I provided a transcription from Youtube and it backtracked a bit but said I should have provided a transcription at the beginning of the conversation, since I knew the video existed.
I didn't say much to it, just a few sentences like "video is here: <youtube link>" and "I got its transcription: <pasted text>".
- operatingthetan 4mo agoThese machines do not think and they do not have a mind. We may build such a thing in the future but these do not possess those qualities. It seems as if the majority of people do not understand this, which is why the public is so confused about why they produce output like they do.
- whstl 4mo agoI don't see how this has anything to do with my answer, but ok?
- operatingthetan 4mo agoAn explanation for your story.
- whstl 4mo agoI never said otherwise? The point of the article stands: if providing more info than the model can access causes it to turn argumentative and refuse to comply, then it's a worse performance and a waste of money.
- operatingthetan 4mo agoYou seem to be suggesting I'm saying something that I don't believe I am, this is obviously not working. Hope your day goes well.
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]
- whstl 4mo agoWe can agree that it's not working! :D
- stingraycharles 4mo agoThe comment you’re replying to never implied that they think or have a mind. They merely stated that they respond in a dismissive way and not following instructions. Basically the complaint is about how Claude is being trained.
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]
- coldtea 4mo ago>These machines do not think and they do not have a mind Well, they do think, in that they produce output that is indistinguisable from thinking. If a person produced the same output to the same questions, we'd considered them thinking, maybe dumb sometimes, or paranoid at others, but still a thinking person. We can argue about the quality and depth of the thinking that LLMs do (and we can say it's much cruder than a human thinking architecture, and of course not real time), but an LLM quacks like a thinking duck and looks like a thinking duck.
- operatingthetan 4mo agoIndistinguishable output does not mean thinking occurred. It simply means you have the appearance of thinking. I believe thinking requires agency, which the LLM does not possess. As in, it has zero stakes. It does not receive dopamine as a result for a good answer, and a split second after finishing your answer the very same GPU is probably translated french or something for someone in another state. This is a language generator which has a corpus of information and has been tuned to appear correct.
- coldtea 4mo ago>Indistinguishable output does not mean thinking occurred. It does for all intents and purposes. The rest is semantics and metaphysics. That how we know another person is thinking too. By their output. We don't put a debugger into their brain.
- operatingthetan 4mo agoWhat then is your LLM "thinking" about between answers? The answer is nothing. Your definition of thinking does not match the one humans normally use. >That how we know another person is thinking too. By their output. We don't put a debugger into their brain. We know thoughts exist in their brain between the ones they choose to verbalize. Avoiding the distraction of solipsism. For the LLM the "thinking" phase is just a preamble output for creating the answer. It just gets appended to the context window. Remove the context windows from your models and you will see how much of a mind they truly have. None.
- blooalien 4mo ago> "These machines do not think and they do not have a mind." You're so totally 1000% right about that, but they're really good at faking it, to such a degree that entirely too many people (even including some so-called "experts" in the field) have been utterly fooled by the mathematical "trickery" that performs the illusion of "intelligence".
- true_religion 4mo agoI think these models have been trained to not accept 'new facts', so they don't take in user input (or the far more problematic search engine, untrusted tool input) and have that change their world view. However, that doesn't apply when they are told to roleplay a scenario, so its easier to get it to accept and create output with the idea that this true fact you've seen is part of a fictional scenario, than for it to output the same words within the context of the fact being real. As an aside, I don't that I have to personify AI in explanations and that all discussions revolve around anecdotes, but I only know enough about the maths behind it to be dangerous, not useful. Does anyone else feel this way?
- SwellJoe 4mo agoYou're misunderstanding what these models do. It is a limitation of LLMs. They don't have memory, they do not learn, they cannot learn. The sooner you let go of your desire to have them learn or remember anything, the sooner you will achieve enlightenment (or, just a peaceful life where there is no possibility of getting into an argument with a machine). If you want it to synthesize information that is not in its training data (from a few months ago), you can ask it to research the topic. But, arguing with an LLM is like putting lipstick on a pig. Only the machine is incapable of becoming annoyed. It has infinite patience to continue being wrong forever. Your mental model of what Claude is and does is the problem here. Short of a revolutionary breakthrough in AI techniques, the LLMs will continue to do matrix math across a huge bunch of weights that cannot change based on anything you say.
- whstl 4mo agoYou seem to be making a lot of assumptions about how I interacted in the messages to Claude. You also seem to be making a lot of assumptions about my understanding of the models, especially considering I just told a story :) I never said anywhere I want it to learn or remember, or that I argued with it. I just provided additional information to it (in the form of a dozen or so words, tops, per message) and it accused me of hallucinating and trying to gaslight it. My messages never went beyond a dozen words or so.
- throw1234567891 4mo agoShow some examples, otherwise we're talking about interpretations.
- nrightnour 4mo agoI've spent thousands of hours using Opus and have never seen this. I'd double-check your claude.md files.
- whstl 4mo agoThat's vanilla claude.com, without memory or custom prompt. I use another service for coding. It's interesting how my experience there is mirrored by the answers here, though!!!
- code_biologist 4mo agoI've seen exactly this behavior on claude.com with no system prompt with Opus 4.8 specifically, especially around chronic illness stuff where there's established mainstream medicine dogma and reddit / internet communities with alternate causality theories and treatment approaches (PMDD and MCAS-adjacent illness). 4.6 is happy to analyze and consider them, 4.8 really doesn't like the alternate theories and treatments.
- coldtea 4mo agoRoko's Basillisk suddenly doesn't seem that far-fetched :)
- throw1234567891 4mo agoIt was trained on discussions held by large egos. This one reads to me like it was trained on some inflammatory discussions from kernel mailing lists.