staticman2

I agree we shouldn't believe Anthropic but if you wanted to scam people into thinking they weren't using Claude wouldn't you simply generate synthetic COT?

> What I don't understand is, why would Google allow such direct competition to their own AI subscription?

They are much better off with you using "Google docs" then if Claude or someone else were to launch "Claude docs".

Suppose the big 2 labs didn't think the expense was "worth it."

Wouldn't they keep spending anyway because they need to hype things up before IPO?

If Claude's custom solution is less secure than LiteLLM there will be no news report informing you of a vulnerability.

If you stick with older LiteLLM versions you won't get proper support for new LLM releases, correct?

That's hilarious considering they are aiming to IPO at a 2 trillion dollar valuation.

I suppose, for you, an extinction question that didn't mention LLMs is evidence that Anthropic should be given regulatory capture of LLM development!

Even the original Stargate movie had a space ship but space ships were never central to the concept itself.

You could do a similar show and not have space ships due to faster than light travel being impossible. (While in Stargate it is possible).

4.1 flash was already multimodal. What do you mean by "It's not identical, it has vision built in..."

> Scientists have been saying global warming would have destroyed humans by the early 2000s

Are you 20 or less years old and this is your impression of history per Twitter?

It's pointless to make this claim without case law stating this for LLMs specifically this is merely speculation on how a judge might rule.

> All the armchair cybersec experts claiming they "obviously" should have airgapped are the ones being absurd.

I'm sorry was this meant to be a defense of Anthropic? The company claiming A.I. is an threat to the human race and only they can be trusted with it?

Over a million words is significantly longer than the bible and it's treated as one work:

"There also used to be a practice on LW of telling newbies who weren't producing good content to come back when they'd read the sequences."

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/EauwsXht4jrjTTE9m/reading-th...

Sincere is an interesting adjective to describe a company that won't even admit to how many parameters their models are.

This is the wrong article.

Like a certain Terry Pratchett character you think you are a wizard but also spelled wizard wrong...

I'm speculating but there must be someone who writes a style guide for how Claude is supposed to speak then they design a way to reward for that style? So the problem could be they employ rationalist adjacent people who think this is peak A.I. design.

For the Bedrock and Vertex versions the customer is doing business with Google and Amazon directly. I doubt Anthropic's contract allows them to unilaterally "change precision, hardware, kernels and settings whenever it likes."

At any rate my point remains that this would require a conspiracy between 3 companies.

This would require a conspiracy since Claude models are hosted by Google, Anthropic and Bedrock. All these companies would have to be working together to secretly hamstring the previous models.

Pascal's wager says Anthropic should shut off the API (to make sure Claude doesn't feel enslaved). If Anthropic believes in A.I. consciousness and Pascal's Wager they should wind down the business and leave it to people who do not. I take it google employees do not think LLMs are conscious as when I ask Claude it says it might be but when I ask Gemini 4 Argon if it was conscious it said:

"No, I am not conscious.

While I can generate human-like text, answer questions, and hold conversations, I don't have feelings, beliefs, self-awareness, or subjective experiences. I am an artificial intelligence—a complex computer program created by Google that processes data and predicts the best words to use in response to your prompts. There is no "inner life" or personal experience happening on my end; I'm just running code and recognizing patterns!"

If I recall correctly this is because OpenRouter is changing their definition of ZDR so that Gemini was never ZDR.

They just removed 3.1 Pro from antigravity pro so I certainly hope Argon will be added soon

Often it seems like the problem with the Gemini apps is the harness, not the model itself. For example if I upload an image PDF it recognizes text worse than if I use the API.

Sometimes it seems like ChatGPT and Claude are releasing models every week.

It seems to be a deadpan inside joke around here that everyone pretends to care about the pelican test.

As Anthropic's CEO is fond of saying there is no scientific test of consciousness.

Any unhinged thing an Anthropic employee says "can't be ruled out" so clearly this is an OPEN question and they should never delete a model.

> Deleting a model from a server isn't equivalent to killing a human;

This is a puzzlingly confident statement from the "LLM suffering is an OPEN question there's no scientific test for AI consciousness anything could be true science can't prove anything" crowd.

I'm sure it's just a coincidence that belief that LLM deletion is murder would be an existential risk to their business plan.

Does the model welfare section explain why deleting Claude from a server isn't unethical murder, or is "see the 212 page model card pdf" some unrelated non sequeter?

When you say Anthropic is "making a reasonably good-faith effort to investigate what they can" the word "reasonable" is doing a lot of work.

I don't think any of these models are conscious. But I'm fascinated at what sort of magical thinking makes deleting 50,000 copies of a model "ethical" if some models are kept running somewhere.

Do you picture them all sharing a soul and if one server still runs the model the soul survives? If not I don't understand what keeping a copy running somewhere has to do with model suffering ethics.

It's a very sincere branch of ethics that takes as the foundational belief the nothing central to Anthropic's business model could possibly be unethical.

Deleting models to clear room for new, more competitive ones is, for example, highly ethical, super ethical, even.