[HN Gopher] Exploring model welfare
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Exploring model welfare
        
       Author : psychanarch
       Score  : 6 points
       Date   : 2025-04-25 14:53 UTC (8 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.anthropic.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.anthropic.com)
        
       | andy99 wrote:
       | This is so irresponsible, it's "misinformation" of the worst kind
       | (in that it's difficult for a layperson to parse and comes from
       | an ostensibly trustworthy source).
       | 
       | When "blockchain" was on obvious scam, we all knew it but weren't
       | vocal enough, now that AI is venturing into mountebank territory,
       | it's important for everyone to speak out against this kind of
       | charlatanism (importantly by dismissing it as nonsense and not
       | letting them shift the narrative). I've lost so much respect for
       | Anthropic who have done some good work but now appear to be a
       | cult.
        
         | qwertox wrote:
         | "Model welfare" is clickbait. The core of the message is about
         | if models can be conscious.
         | 
         | The video is worth watching. Maybe embedding it in an article
         | so strongly focused on the welfare topic is a mistake, but
         | then: why not, if this is what it takes the then-outraged news
         | outlets to put the topic of AI consciousness on the table?
         | 
         | To me the p-zombie theory will most likely always be applicable
         | to any non-wet AI, no matter how brilliant it will be.
        
           | econ wrote:
           | Long ago I coin robotmancipation as a joke but also as a
           | thought experiment. My conclusion is that we have so much
           | mirroring behaviour that we should be very afraid. Someone
           | long ago said the way we treat animals today will be the way
           | we treat people tomorrow. There are no part time respectable
           | people.
        
         | danbmil wrote:
         | How exactly is this irresponsible? Are you proclaiming that any
         | discussion of "machine consciousness" is axiomatically
         | misleading?
        
           | okthrowman283 wrote:
           | It's becoming clear that this issue is going to become one of
           | the most divisive in history.
           | 
           | Apparently a large number of people outright dismiss even the
           | possibility of "machine sentience". It seems to trigger some
           | pretty visceral reactions.
           | 
           | Never mind the fact we can't even define
           | sentience/consciousness to begin with. We have no idea why or
           | how it arises - yet we're very quick to make strong claims
           | about it.
        
             | hcarvalhoalves wrote:
             | The problem is any discussion around this topic is tainted
             | - these companies have to justify their valuations. Begins
             | with the shift in nomenclature: "LLM" is now "AI".
        
       | mpalmer wrote:
       | We're approaching this issue with humility. (Here is a
       | professionally produced video publicizing the issue and our
       | approach. The issue we're being humble about presupposes that we
       | have achieved a technological advance unprecedented in history.)
       | 
       | We recognize that we'll need to regularly revise our ideas as the
       | field develops. (Despite there being no consensus, we are eager
       | not only to be part of the conversation in the public sphere, but
       | to start it and continue it.)
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2025-04-25 23:02 UTC)