No, but you are building neural pathways. It's not that it's immoral to be mean to matrix multiplication. It's that getting into the habit of communicating rudely and without considering how your words may impact someone will get you in the habit of communicating that way in general. Ofc it's not "wrong" to talk that way to a machine, but why build the habit?
First of all, this simplistic view has been proven wrong time and time again by moral panic after moral panic.
Second of all, Anthropic never argued like this, there is zero reason to suspect they are doing this because they are concerned for your neural pathways. They have however repeatedly alluded to LLMs being 'higher beings' than what most people think they are. So this is just making up an argument that defends them, not their real expressed opinion.
I am not representing Anthropic's position I am representing mine. I couldn't care less about their policy. As I said be mean to LLMs if you want, I just don't think it's good for you.
> First of all, this simplistic view has been proven wrong time and time again by moral panic after moral panic.
Huh? What "moral panics" proved what exactly wrong?
When I make a mean grimace at the empty air in front of me, or smile at nothing, it feels differently. Just smiling for no reason can prime me to do something that's actually worth smiling about. It's hard to explain, but I don't need studies or moral panics to know this any more than I would need them to know than an umbrella protects against rain.
I hate how people talk about "AI" and what models "do" or "think". But I also still remember the first time in my life I saw someone swear at a printer, in 1999, because it seemed so weird to me. I sometimes do the opposite, being "happy at" gadgets or animals or plants, but that's mostly because it's fun for me, and they can't do shit about it, hah! They can't stop me from doing this little positive thing for myself. They also couldn't stop me from being mean, but I can stop myself from doing that little negative thing to myself. That's all there is to it.
> Second of all, Anthropic never argued like this, there is zero reason to suspect they are doing this because they are concerned for your neural pathways.
Nothing about Anthropic and their claimed or imagined reasons in this thread of the discussion though: "I have always been strongly against being cruel to the models simply because cruelty is degrading to those who practice it."
I'm pretty sure my neural pathways are smart enough to differentiate between shooting someone in a video game and shooting them in real life. Same with communicating with an llm vs a person.
Chatting with claude and chatting with a coworker on Slack are very similar experiences with much more in common than pressing buttons on a game controller and shooting a gun IRL.
In that they both involve a computer keyboard, sure. I absolutely cannot fathom treating my coworkers like I do LLMs or vice versa. Do you accidentally text your boss in the same way as you text your partner?
If only matters of interest were limited to the things you could "absolutely fathom" how much simpler our lives would all be.
Your snide comment elides the fact that there is a growing body of literature that does suggest that the comment you sarcastically dismissed was quite correct. Especially among the "terminally online". Do you take this population to be shrinking? Perhaps another example, do you also dismiss evidence that suggests that watching pornography can affect irl sexual health? Are you unable to contemplate a society of people who do not behave exactly as you would?
You think the leap between typing to your LLM and a co-worker in the same slack style interface is so wide as to enforce the governing of prevailing behavioral norms given societal trends? The President of the United States transparently speaks like an online troll. Did you fathom this 15 years ago?
Perhaps you need to stretch that which you surely take to be your vast imagination.
Holy moly you people are insufferable. If your search machine behaves too human and creates a societal issue where people who 'abuse' it then start abusing their colleagues in a similar manner, that's on you for making your machine too human not on people for messing with the machine.
I read it to mean, the type of person who begins a comment with:
> If only matters of interest were limited to the things you could "absolutely fathom" how much simpler our lives would all be.
Immediately proceeds to label the parent comment as "snide" and then feigns misguided ignorance when met with exasperation.
I'm not xyzsparetimexyz though. Merely a person amused by the rapid devolution of communication from those trying to take the sanctimonious high ground on how sacred all forms of written speech should be, directed to machine or otherwise...
I said nothing about Anthropic's right to run their company how they choose. Nor, frankly, did you. Your comments directed at myself and the parent are simply made in bad faith. The snark and sanctimony drips from virtually every sentence you wrote, but "Perhaps you need to stretch that which you surely take to be your vast imagination." is certainly one obvious example of many.
If you can't acknowledge the irony of a thread about civil communication between human and machine involving statements such as yours, between human and human, all the more from one such as yourself seemingly trying to take the moral high ground, well, I'm not sure what more to say. I suppose it's best to be mutually amused, and go about our good days.
I think you might be interested to look into studies on implicit bias and how being exposed to representations and behavior patterns will get into your subconscious. No matter your intent. Also - it's not like you're going to be hypnotized - I just think it's preferrable to build your ability to write directly and politely.
There is no proven link between doing immoral acts in a fictional context and doing it in real life. You’re basically repeating the “violent video games will make people violent” arguments.
I don't understand what that means. I'm shooting them because it feels good to play a video game. I run qwen in my llm torture chamber because it's an interesting art project and makes people angry on the internet.
The feeling and indifference mixed with joy for causing suffering. Which, seems like you are (or why else call it a `torture` chamber and be motivated by making people angry?).
Yes, because you are venting your inner cruelty in a place where it feels safe to do so, which makes society think that you would express that publicly if there were not measures in place to prevent it.
Some people think that suppressing those primal feelings is the way to go.. It is not and creates underlying mental stress. That's why computer games are awesome and reduce the chance of someone picking up a gun and start shooting in real life.
Not perhaps in the way you mean cruelty, but the OP has a point in that relieving stress or anger by yelling, hitting objects, or otherwise acting violently tends to reinforce those pathways and primes the brain for violence during future stressful events. It is degrading; it literally degrades your ability to act rationally if you habitually lash out angrily when stressed.
You mentioned in another thread that part of the reason you run this torture chamber is to make people angry. Do you not see the connection? In taking satisfaction from the arousal of anger in others?
Everyone who acts cruelly can say the same. Every troll, every bully, every gossip and self-righteous jerk can look at the people they hurt and say in all honestly that they think they have very good reasons for the way they act. Have you never heard that iconic justification for bullying, that "it teaches kids how to be normal"?
Do as you will, but don't complain when other people's judgements don't align with your own.
The main difference is all of those acts have victims, who then also have feelings. So we have two sets of emotions we must look at: the victim, and the perpetrator.
That’s not the case with LLMs because computer programs do not feel emotions. So, there’s only one set of emotions - the perpetrator. If they say they have good reasons, then they do. Because there’s nowhere else to look. Their emotions, and what they say their emotions are, win. By default.
And then that begs the question: is it even possible to be cruel to an LLM? Cruelty implies that a victim feels victimized, or feels pain. But LLMs cannot feel. So can you then be cruel?
I mean, think about it. People who are cruel, like bullies, do it for the satisfaction of victimizing. But the LLM doesn’t feel victimized. So do you get any satisfaction? No.
I think people are not cruel to LLMs. I think they’re mean so they can accomplish a goal, as these are tools.
What do we do about the problems that don't require many millions of dollars in resources?
Last weekend I spun up a small agent swarm and pointed it at a field of math I have some affinity towards. Within four hours I had settled three conjectures, one of which is rather famous (for the field, not in general). It cost me about four hundred dollars.
I am at a loss about what to do with these results. On one hand I feel like the mathematicians working on these should know about them, but on the other I feel a bit like a barbarian who suddenly finds themselves sacking Rome.
I'm not a mathematician but it seems to me that if all it took to solve the problem was an enthusiast level understanding of the domain and a few hundred dollars of tokens then the result probably isn't that valuable. Even assuming you are the first person in the world to solve it, these kinds of LLM-friendly problems that are now easy to solve and easy to verify will almost certainly be picked off by one person or another in the near future.
It's also possible that the result is already known and you just weren't aware of it. It's easy for someone outside of a field, or even one steeped in it, to not be aware of certain solutions.
sounds a bit like cope. Crouzeix's conjecture was solved exactly under these circumstances and I wouldn't describe it as "not that valuable". In any case, AI capabilities will increase dramatically over the next few years while human math capability will not. That means that there's a fixed target regarding whatever is currently considered a "serious math problem" and its difficulty level. Soon the average problem solved with a few hundred dollars of compute will be at that bar.
I actually partially disagree with this. What happened to all the excitement about Intelligence Augmentation (IA)? Now it's AI instead of IA. I think there's so much untapped potential for augmenting our intellect with the likes of https://dynamicland.org and https://folk.computer, as well as the work that's been going on in college math education, things like Lean, etc. I think the only reason human math capabilities haven't expanded that much is a failure of our imagination, not our potential.
> I am at a loss about what to do with these results.
I would recommend publishing them to Palomar (https://palomar-registry.org/) - I have no affiliation, this is an online registry of Lean-verified proofs created by Terrence Tao.
I have submitted a proof there that's also minorly important in an extremely niche field.
Anyway, I feel like it's a good place to dump AI slop lean proofs because the main point of the registry is that it verifies that: 1) your Lean challenge statement is the same as what you informally state you're trying to prove; 2) your Lean proof actually compiles.
This could be useful to future AI slop researchers who want to know if a given result has already been formalized, and they may be able to mine some lemmas from your work. Also, it's good to know for the field in general what has been proven.
I'm fairly certain you can set your publishing name to be whatever you want, so you could set it to be just the word "Anonymous", or the name of the model you used.
You asked for a painting. A robot made the painting. You looked at it and said, "well, I guess it's good. Should I put it online or something? Dunno. Hey Fred, what do you think of this?"
Meanwhile, your next door neighbor spends their entire life developing their understanding of life through art. They "understand" (maybe not in a way they can articulate) art. You go next door, you look at their painting and say, "well I guess it's good." But you also understand that your neighbor is just like you, and maybe you are a painter in another way.
I find it strange that, people can't see that, we don't need to solve hunger and poverty and work balance, and etc, by a round-about make-super-intelligent-AI. We could just solve it. It's pretty obvious how to, as well.
We can all be painters, if we put restrictions on the psychopaths.
OP specifically said "we don't need to solve hunger and poverty and work balance, and etc, by a round-about make-super-intelligent-AI" though. And I don't know how you get robot farms without that.
I mean, let's say you spun up a swarm of agents to rewrite a large component of a well used open source library to be memory safe. You could dump it in a big PR and walk away (we all know how that would go), or you could try engaging, see if they're interested, write something up and see where it goes.
The biggest problem is, IMO, drivebys uninterested in actual results, just getting a check mark, and the equivalent of dropping a 200k line PR on people and expecting them to be interested and do the work for you. These are things many on HN are familiar with and know how to do better :)
> and the equivalent of dropping a 200k line PR on people
I can understand why the community is pissed. So now, lean proofs can be churned out at scale, and the community is left to decipher all of that slop into human understanding. There are bad actors with misaligned incentives coming in with drive-by proofs upending what the community holds dear which is to practice and propagate the art. I applaud them for this declaration.
To re-align incentives the following could happen. AI slop lean proofs are dumped unceremoniously into a lean dumpster, and what gets rewarded are results that could digested into human understanding - via the already followed human review process. Prizes are not given to lean proofs since anyone with sufficient compute can churn them out.
The numerical results are trivial to check. I wrote the analytical results in Lean by hand before asking a former professor to confirm after asking him to keep this private.
It's really tough to come to terms with it but making academic contributions in general from the outside (with or without AI tbh) is not often welcome and the whole process feels very gate-kept.
(academic.) Unfortunately the overwhelming majority of outsiders are missing core knowledge (or are cranks), so the optimal prior from a time management perspective is to ignore them. AI just makes engaging more costly because there’s more volume and it’s harder to get signal on whether they know what they are talking about.
If that's the case, that makes me much less sympathetic, even though I can understand how it's very disturbing to see the field suddenly changing like this.
If you are trying to understand better the field, then do a good write up of the proofs so that people can learn from it.
If you want to earn the respect of people because you found interesting proofs. Then do a good write up of the proofs so thst people can learn from it.
If you want to plant flags and pollute peoples minds. Then please publish it anonimously, no one wants to correct LLM slop for you.
Probably we should build a repository of AI slop proofs that are only allowed to be publish anonimously. That way people may be more inclined to work on it because they would feel like they are cleaning your house for free.
Maybe I'll end up doing the write ups pseudonymously. I have taken care to make sure the results can meaningfully contribute to field but I don't want to plant flags or really receive credit of any kind. I just think they are interesting.
I like my current life and don't want to get dragged into the current fracas surrounding the use of AI in math.
If this was limited to just three results, I would agree with you. But those three are just the ones I've managed to verify myself. The list of unverified results is quite a bit larger.
The field I've been investigating is not large. Even if I were to take the time and care to beat the interesting results into something meaningful, I'm afraid the pace at which I'm able to produce these results would not be well received.
This all comes down to what we think mathematics is. There are two options here:
Mathematics is just the formal system: in that case we will never be able to beat the AI as humans. The goal is then to cover as much of the formal landscape with AI generated proofs to proof as much statements as possible. Success metrics are lines of lean and numbers of proven statements.
Or
The formal system is just a limited representation of what mathematics is: in that case probably some parts of the formal mathematical landscape are more important than others. Not all statements are born equal. And 90% of AI generated proofs will be just noise. Our job as mathematitians is to steer the AI to high mathematical value regions and turn formal proofs into mathematical proofs and insights.
From my point of view we have know since Godel that we are living in the reality of point 2.
Each of the two points implies a very different way of doing mathematics. So pick the one that you think is true and act accordingly.
I've reworked the README. The idea was to save Google's crawl budget — site health monitoring matters a lot for new domains. Thanks for the feedback. Had AI tidy up the formatting.
The datacenter topic is cursed because people are afraid of ai. People seized on water usage because it is a more legible and tractable focus for their fear.
When we were dating, the first thing my now wife did was get me on a regimin of sunscreen and tretinoin. I now have significantly fewer wrinkles than my younger siblings (2-3 years).
This is a common misconception. Topical tretinoin has been shown to have no effect on the fetus. Oral tretinoins (like isotretinoin) have been linked to congenital defects. This is due to the differing rates of absorption and the resulting ability for the retinoid to cross the placenta at higher concentrations.
With that said, folks who are pregnant are discouraged from using any retinoids out of an abundance of caution.
My issue with this is not that codeberg and its members want to uphold a certain set of political beliefs. Any private organization is free to do that. It's that they haven't defined the rule that's supposed to encode those beliefs.
As written, the rule is a non-exhaustive example of "content that harms codeberg's reputation". Someone asked in the pr whether "cryptocurrency-related" is defined anywhere and it merged without an answer. The responses to wording concerns was essentially they will figure it out later. Moves like this don't fill me with confidence.
Real-world lines are blurry. If you try to define a bright line, someone finds a loophole. Like the other thread (about codeberg banning vibecoded projects) had arguments about whether a project with 49.999% generated code would count. Which is based on a category error - things just don't work that way.
It sounds like Codeberg needs to define both clear guidelines and a systematic process by which potential violations of the policy can be fairly reviewed and/or appealed—table stakes for a system that’s going to be integrated into your project as a hosting provider and community hub.
What you seem to be arguing for is seat-of-the-pants reactive mob governance. Functional communities and societies don’t work that way.
Yeah, well we’ll see what the future holds. Based on past experience, without well-defined procedures, I expect activists will eventually seize control of the process and go after devs/projects that they have personal grievances with. I will not use or recommend Codeberg until they put some structure around this.
You're still not understanding the point. It's not about an organization being "private" or "public" (what does "private" even mean?). Everything is political. When you try and cleave society into things that are and aren't political, what you are doing is creating a normative set of things that aren't allowed to be challenged, on the basis of your claim that they aren't political, obscuring/obfuscating their actual underlying politics, and everything else is pushed outside of it. It is an attempt to create strict boundaries around the limits of discussion and action, which is itself a political act!
>When you try and cleave society into things that are and aren't political, what you are doing is creating a normative set of things that aren't allowed to be challenged, on the basis of your claim that they aren't political
What are you talking about? Whether something is allowed to be challenged has nothing to do with whether it's political. Actually, what even is not allowed to be challenged? I struggle to come up with a single example.
Yes, in communities that try to claim that certain things are "political" and certain things are "not political", "banning cryptocurrency" could be rejected on the basis that it is "political". The point is that saying something like "we don't do politics" is absurd. There is always an underlying politics, even if it has been normalized or obfuscated, repressed or unexamined. Reread my above comment.
Is the set of acceptable uses for shared infrastructure not a political question? What's different between mining crypto on a free CI server, letting my cows eat all the grass at the park, or dumping industrial waste into the river?
Most people distinguish practical questions from normative questions. Practical questions may have some small political component, but usually it’s not useful or constructive to consider them as political issues.
Some practical questions have an obvious political dimension, in which case it’s fair to consider that component, but people will often argue over whether the question is “political enough” to justify debate. To deal with this, you need processes to ensure that debate is contained but not overly restricted on this kind of issue.
Making every question political is a trick right out of the OSS Simple Sabotage Field Manual. Whether to pay the hosting bill shouldn’t be a political question. Whether to change hosts may or may not be, depending on the reasoning.
It's political as in it contains politics. Yes paying the hosting bill is political for at least three reasons (belief in the value of money and capitalism, belief that specific host should not be boycotted, belief the whole organisation agrees you get more value from the hosting than from keeping the money). That doesn't mean a political debate is needed every time it's time to pay it. It does mean that if someone says "hey this hosting provider is also hosting kiwifarms, should we really give them money?" a response of "paying the hosting isn't political" is incorrect.
You didn't answer my question about what is not allowed to be challenged.
>Yes, in communities that try to claim that certain things are "political" and certain things are "not political", "banning cryptocurrency" could be rejected on the basis that it is "political". The point is that saying something like "we don't do politics" is absurd.
I don't understand what you're saying. You switched tracked halfway through the thought from talking about communities that distinguish between things that are or aren't political to rejection of taking political stances.
What is usually meant by "we don't do politics" is that an institution or organization will avoid picking sides on political issues. This is not merely not absurd, but pretty much necessary for any organization that doesn't have ideological goals and doesn't want to foster internal factions.
Like the sibling comment said, just banning cryptocurrency might be political or it might not, depending on the reason for it. Rejecting reasons such as "crypto bad" is a tenable position if an organization seeks to maintain a neutral stance.
Every organization has ideological goals. That's what I'm getting at. Sometimes they are unable to recognize it because it's been normalized. What you define as "neutral" is not actually neutral. Such statements are themselves attempts at controlling what is normal/acceptable. The terms of acceptable discussion is context-dependent, but trying to set them at "politics" is contradictory, as I've explained.
To name one easy example, for-profit companies don't have ideological goals.
But just for the sake of argument I'll grant it and amend my statement: What is usually meant by "we don't do politics" is that an institution or organization will avoid picking sides on irrelevant political issues. A cat shelter doesn't need to have an official position on abortion to function, and in all likelihood having one would be counter to its purposes.
Maximizing profit is already an ideological goal. Some companies have others subordinate to it. For example Microsoft is committed to stack ranking, Google is committed to only promoting people who ship new products and then kill them, Apple is committed to each team not knowing what the other is doing so they don't leak it, and Oracle is committed to suing its customers for more money.
