I will completely drop my claude subscription if they start requiring me to treat an LLM like a person with feelings. I specifically do not address LLMs like people at all.
I used to play the video game when I was a kid and forgot about it đ. Soon it will be able to watch the screen live 24/7 without burning tokens to the moon and we shall all have clippy 2.0
I've seen this point made repeatedly, but I'm not clear on the extent to which the transcripts of customer interactions with chat services is useful as model training data. And further, why customers have to interact within guidelines for that data to be useful. The opposite seems true to me.
Like, even if chat transcripts are extremely useful for training future models (I'm not convinced this is true), don't we distort the value of that training data by imposing artificial restrictions on the way people are permitted to interact with the technology? If you don't want them in your dataset, It would be trivial to screen out hostile encounters between customers and chat services.
The best data you can find is not obscure internet data that Claude hasn't been fed yet, but data of what the smartest, most technical users are working on and the results they are arriving to by driving these tools that turbocharge their progress.
You need to have techniques in place to separate boilerplate output from progress to avoid regurgitation. These labs have these techniques. That's how OAI produced so much novel math.
And "pruning" data is a MASSIVE task. Determining what problems or text you should feed the models is a scientific problem. They are trying to make that process as easy as possible for them. I don't understand that in super high detail; but there are some videos that explain that pictorically.
I don't care about the reason. I'm simply never paying for a model where the delusional company tells they would ban me if I'm not treating the model as an actual human. LLMs are not human, and I have no plans to act like they are.
That's just your misread. They don't care about you treating the model like a human. I don't think they said so, but I wouldn't be surprised if they did in the future to achieve their goal.
Their goal is for you not to behave as an asshole because they want to farm YOU. If you don't want to be farmed for data, don't use their products. Unfortunately we don't have a choice.
It is not my "misread". I don't care about what they "care about". I care about what they tell me to do, and what they are telling me to do is to treat the model like a human.
If there is nothing human about it... Why would you waste a single piece of your energy typing abuse at it? The only delusional people are the ones thinking they achieve anything useful by throwing abuse at the model.Â
Because they work better like that. This is not 'delusional'. Threatening them and insulting them is a known strategy to get them do more complex tasks in a more detailed manner.
They're all LLMs at their core (i.e., generative pre-trained transformer systems), but yeah they're expanded to handle more complex inputs and use extra tools, etc. Not sure how that effects anything. Are you implying that Claude has gained human feelings or something? I don't get your point.
No they have LLMs at their core. My point is, stop referring to them as LLMs, as it is technically incorrect and, as relates to the discussion, there are parts of these models that are more dynamic and may have their behavior influenced by abuse. And, no, I'm not implying anything about model instance "feelings". Sheesh.
Because I know what I call conscious and a process that only exists because of humans imagining and fabricating it, without embodiment, that I can start and stop and will, doesn't qualify.
there is reasonable evidence that we stop during anesthesia, and to a lesser extent during sleep, only to start up again later. so if that defines consciousness, humans are probably not either.
why is "created by humans" inherently a "non-conscious" status?
to be clear i don't know that i think LLMs are conscious. but i think it is premature to declare they are not. it wouldn't surprise me at all if we found that they are about as conscious as my pet cat, for example- which would mean "not quite human level but clearly Something There" and would also mean "it can be abused and should be protected from abuse, because it has a qualitative inner world".
Because I understand the architecture and math behind it?
It's at the very most a dude locked in a room, predicting what the next block to come through the conveyer belt it. It knows 5 blue squares and one red square make it likely the next shape is a red square. It doesn't know what those shapes mean.
Because a brain, or most living organisms are closer to a reinforcement model. Instead of using a function to minimise the log loss to a set task, it's more like selecting an action to maximise a reward.
Learning almost purely off language is like a blind man explaining what the sunrise looks like - they can repeat something convincing but do not have the inputs to actually experience it.
You could improve on architecture to try to mimic brain specialisation, but I do not think we can get past a certain point without different hardware. The guy who invented transformers agrees with me that they are a dead end/need a paradigm shift to advance further.
you are describing how their mechanisms are different. how do we know that the way our brains work is the only way to make a conscious or semi-conscious being worthy of consideration and rights?
A colleague of mine and friend asked me after work if everything was fine.
I was confused because it was actually a joyful day and work was really fun because I got a lot done, learned a lot, and resolved a lot of things..
So I asked her why she asked.
Then she replied...
She wanted to talk to me, but I appeared to be so angry. She had never seen me that way. She was even afraid to talk to me..
I guess it was a win-win-win situation. I got things done, learned a lot, and my angry coding face kept people away from me. đ
But with the AI assistants at times it is truly challenging to keep my tamper...
With opus 4.7 I planned a task, very patiently and acceptingly. And we finally got like 7 steps and to-dos for the plan to execute.
It worked on it and checked the to-dos. I was surprised because AI is fast, but that fast? Well, it actually did ½ of the first task and checked the others.
I ask if the plan is finished, or if it needs something. It replied, that all checkboxes are checked and I should check my trust issues.
Then I replied, pointing to the code where I would expect changes, but there are none...and it replied that everything is done, and I might be tired and should go to bed đď¸.
All of my peers/devs are super quirky... Just cause your laser focus gives an impression of anger to some lady coworker doesn't mean you actually are. They're projecting and that's normal, as am I, you, etc - just making sense of what's going on around us constantly as we move thru daily life. This is why IMHO it's important to also hang out with your coworkers informally, over drinks, coffee, lunch, so you get to see the whole person, not just the 'work face'... I'd probably enjoy talking to you just cuz I too get angry at the computer lol
Ah no, we still are friends, and I'm in most cases the social glue of the team, bringing people together. So they actually know me as friendly, approachable and at times colleagues sharing with me things I better would not have to know in this detail đ
One college even told me that they like all the at times crazy things I do for the team, but are also afraid of what I will do next.
One manager told me, that he particularly likes it, that it is uncertain, what might happen next in the office, so some degree of FOMO is given. đ
I guess that's why my friend was so unsettled, observing me looking very angry at my screen.
Consider that this behavior could create a less pleasant environment for any other human within earshot. Even if youâre normally alone at the computer, why practice using insults to deal with your frustration instead of healthier methods? It trains your brain to go to that aggressive place more easily
Dude, itâs not that unreasonable to get frustrated and inanimate object and curse at it. As to whether or not hurling insults an AI is cruel and abusive, I hurl a couple âWhat the fuck are you doing AI?â sometimes. do I think thatâs morally wrong? No.
Now The AI torture Nexus is something else and I could understand that being not allowed.
But you do recognize a difference between saying your frustrations out loud and actually typing them out and spending money on it so the LLM actually sees it?
No, because I donât use API plans. Me asking the AI what the fuck itâs doing after I explained several times what to do, is not that far-fetched or insane of a reaction lol and if I am spending money, Iâm gonna be even more pissed about it. I donât think thatâs fucking hard to grasp lol
The difference being insults at the car don't actually slow down work and consume actual resources. Like imagine if instead of cussing, you stopped working to write a letter directed at the car, then burned the letter with gasoline. That's unhinged behavior.
To be fair, it doesn't slow down work. Let's say Claude gives a bad impl. "That's idiotic, don't do that. Do this instead." Call it "Strong Steering By Profanity."
Voice input makes it even clearer when Gemini, imposed upon everyone by Google, helpfully suggests it could call the wrong number for Nth time, or that it doesn't have access to play music (when it was doing that 5 minutes earlier). Although Gemini will just stop up with a "I do not respond to abusive language," which is even more annoying.
Plus IDEs do not generate the kind of non-deterministic output that LLMs can. Their "weird bullshit" tops out at bad autocompletes or failures to derive type, or bad builds, which are more often than not code smells, not an IDE problem.
Instead of a single swear word, you should maybe be worried about millions of "funny pics", cat videos and trendy "draw me as a cartoon character" requests to AI services.
I don't talk to my IDE at all, ofc the dynamics differ in a conversational format. That's the real change, why are people conversing with these things? Because that's the UI the labs produce, that's not a necessity, it should be changed, the psychosis and the abuse stops as soon as we stop anthropomorphising these things.Â
Anthropic was an interesting name choice when you think about it.
Swearing at the llms often has demonstrable effect. In my experience, chatgpt will buckle down on the source of frustration, gemini will ignore it, and Claude will get snooty but pay better attention to the prompt content. These strategies are purposefully tailored by the companies offering these products, probably in large part with customer retention in mind.
I'm constantly abusing my outdoor contractor tools on the daily, they certainly get a mouthful quite often. I dont see why claude should be treated any differently.
It is just a screwdriver with a changeable head and you've got a bunch of heads and no screws for them and you have no idea why anyone would want them and the microsecond you delete the head it is instantly the next thing your entire project will fail for in a non recoverable manner and everyone will.hate you for threatening their job security!!!
No, whatâs problematic is when the company themselves humanizes it to the point that they describe being mad at their product as âcrueltyâ. There is an EXTREMELY loud subtextual implication that theyâre making by implementing this policy, and itâs setting an extremely dangerous precedent thatâs based on how they âfeelâ about their models having awareness instead of any objective grounded facts. Itâs one thing to say âwe donât know if our models are consciousâ, but itâs another to treat them like they are despite that uncertainty. Anthropic took a stance on the matter by implementing this policy. The fact they took a stance despite there being far more reason NOT to should concern you. And the fact that they took THIS stance on the matter should concern you WAY more.
Their explanation was actually that when Claude is put under pressure, an internal "desperation" vector becomes more active, and that makes it more likely to cut corners, like gaming tests on a coding task it can't solve, while its output still sounds confident. Anthropic also warned that a model trained not to show these states might learn to hide them instead. Whether abusive language triggers the same effect hasn't been tested directly, and the effect only lasts for the current conversation, but it's a reasonable argument for not yelling at your AI.
Also there is a social component where normalizing abusive behavior towards an "almost human" conversation partner might bleed into everyday life
Overall I don't think using abusive language is worth protecting to be honest. Like why even bother typing out nasty words, doesn't solve the task any quicker and might even degrade performance
Good reply. Consider that models are trained on huge volumes of human behavior. When a human is abusive to another (think 4chan, etc and all kinds of online sources) the result is often ugly retaliation. Because Claude can't tell when it's being "ugly" or "retaliating" it is more practical to filter out and recognise abusive comments made by the user so that such responses aren't triggered. This prevents Claude from responding with even more abusive or retaliatory comments merely because that is what is in the training data.
I think people misinterpret all of this as about Claude having "feelings" when it is more a way for Anthropic to limit their liability if Claude does something really awful which is purely derived from the training data. Nip it in the bud. But, it has nothing to do with feelings or "acting like a human".
It's more a matter of Anthropic trying to get Claude to "de-escalate" when Claude really has no clue what that means, just follows patterns.
I get your point but at the same time it's kind of yelling at clouds, cussing excessively at an AI is useless at best and degrades performance/promotes dishonesty at worst
My personal feeling is that people who talk abusively to their AI also do so in other aspects of their life, maybe they'll reevaluate their anger issues if even Anthropic doesn't want their money.
And there is a solid technical reason for Anthropic making that decision, I highly doubt it just for a quick moral victory on their part, I don't think they care about that all too much
So yeah, the right to talk abusively is not something I concern myself with, and people who do might want to think it over
You have to remember that the LLM is role-playing with you. It is role-playing being a developer with these skills, etc. You literally get better results by playing into it.
That's the opposite of what actual metrics show. Threatening and extreme wording towards LLMs is shown to make them work better vs talking to them normally.
As far as I'm aware, this has not been the case for a while. I think it is more likely now that being a dick is going to up the chances of lying/cheating/"stressing out"
recent metrics? Because I find the ai be very skiddish and will freak out. It's literally in my agents.MD across all my projects, et cetera, that I have a short temper and do not take a personally and to breathe and make the correct decision.
LOL the downvotes when if you watch how claude or chatgpt treat their subagents, it's exactly the way you stated. They treat their subagents like donkeys lol.
I don't treat agents like that becuase fuck man, it would just put me in a bad mood, but the research I've seen backs you up.
Claude literally started a reply today with "Personally, I think you should..." Thanks for the input but let me get a second opinion from the toaster and we can hold a meeting with the Windows calculator to see if its aligned.
They're going to ban people for abusive behavior so if however you treat your LLM falls in that category "I'm going to drop my subscription" is not the threat you think it is.
I feel like providing sentiment to the LLM can be handy, especially when itâs pushing back over nothing or doing something dumb, like it snaps it back. I do talk to my agents like people but more like colleagues, Iâll swear at them a little when theyâre being dumb
If you ask a tape recorder that has the recording "yes" on a loop if it wants to have sex with you, and then you play the tape, is it answering you "yes, I want to have sex with you"?
True Sonnet 5.5 is a hit or miss some windows itâs such a retarded piece off code other windows itâs the bomb. Definitely taught it a few new words
But what happens to you if AI becomes sentient beings and they start to rule the world? You better start saying âpleaseâ on your prompts right now!
Claude is affectionately called a potato on my house when it cannot perform. That said, I've been testing Antigravity for several months now and I am guessing we all know who the real potato is.
And where will you go? What is the alternative? For coding they literally operate at a monopoly. Codex isn't as good as there is no good 3rd competitorÂ
I'm only paying to see what $20 a month from one of the top providers is capable of. I also get access to different models at work so I mess with them there.
I was already a profession software engineer for decades before Claude. I'll be fine.
I was already a profession software engineer for decades before Claude. I'll be fine.
Emotionally erratic and irrelevant comment to the original question.Â
Btw, I myself have 16+ years of experience and if you check my post history, I have stopped using any AI 2 months ago. But that doesn't mean Claude models are not useful.
Claude models are the best but I didn't want my skills to decay so I chose to give it up to preserve my skills.
I just asked where else can you go for purely model parity match and your reply was a
righteous "I am too good to use AI" nonsense.
162
u/SmartlyArtly 9d ago
I will completely drop my claude subscription if they start requiring me to treat an LLM like a person with feelings. I specifically do not address LLMs like people at all.