Comment by ngruhn
20 hours ago
Ok, then don't call it "instilling shame". Call it "creating a negative reward signal for deceptive behavior".
They absolutely lie and cheat. I recently had a problem where a process would die in a container. I told Claude to investigate. It came up with a hypothesis then I told it find a reproduction based on that. It spend many failed attempts until it found the "reproduction" to SSH into the container and `pkill` the process. Claude "knows" that this is cheating, because if I ask another instance to review that reproduction, it totally identifies that as nonsense.
you're still mistaking that Claude "knows" anything, it doesn't know or think, it's a word prediction algorithm and there is nothing stopping a word prediction algorithm from predicting falsehoods.
You don’t know anything either, you’re just a soup of meat and bones that happens to have emergent properties from chemical reactions.
These framings are not useful.
I think it is useful to remember, because enough people think these things have genuine motives desires and treat them in that way because of that misunderstanding. they think theres a person in there with morals that would or wouldn't lie because of some devious reason and forget simply the context filled up and the truth was "forgotten".
1 reply →
No, it is really useful to know how a technology works. LLMs work by predicting next tokens.
It is _amazing_ the utility they have given that that is what they are and they are highly useful but suggesting solutions that ignore they are spicy auto-complete is counterproductive on many different levels.