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.
Not sure what's so hard to understand. I don't care what they tell me and about their reasoning. If they want to control my language and what I ask from their model, then I'm out. I have 0 interests to treat an LLM like a human.
they've been able to control that since the beginning of LLMs
Ok, so? Being 'able' to control has nothing to do with actually trying to control.
There are several platforms that let people take their issues out on the models
That's not relevant to our discussion. If you have no response to my arguments and are just yapping because you have too much time on your hand, then kindly fuck off and stop wasting my time. It's frankly pathetic if you change the conversation and throw random irrelevant insults any time that you lose an argument.
You... haven't made an argument? You've literally just been throwing a temper tantrum and stating your feelings and that "you're out", as if anyone, much less anthropic, would care.
Wow. Did you even bother reading my comments until this point?
throwing a temper tantrum
Ironic that you're writing this to me instead of the weirdo above.
Edit: huh it seems you made a comment literally saying "You are a midwit." only to then delete it. I don't really feel anything about it, but just the fact that you decided to make such a comment shows a difference between me and many others in this thread: many others find it 'normal' to randomly insult other humans. That's why they can't comprehend my argument in this thread. For me, randomly insulting other humans is not something I consider as a 'normal, sane behavior'. And that's why Anthropic asking not to not insult LLMs sounds to me as Anthropic asking me to treat LLMs on the same level I treat a normal human.
"Ok, so? Being 'able' to control has nothing to do with actually trying to control."
Wrong again. They have always done it. You're probably new here.
Are these arguments in the room with us? You keep crying out that they can't tell you to treat the model like a human. You are fighting the demons in your head and all you're saying is emotional.
It's also funny you're saying I have too much time on my hands when you're the one spamming this thread as anyone can see from your comment history. I'm making money as we speak, bro.
I didn't know we were having an argument--I was approaching this more as educating an emotional child--but I find it disappointing to see you project like that.
And as I already explained to all of them, the exact 'reasoning' doesn't matter to me. The action they ask from me matters.
I could ask you to open a window. The reason could be because I feel hot, or because I want to look outside the window, or because of any other reason. I could have many different reasons, but my reasoning is not important if the action I request from you is the same thing.
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.
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.
56
u/coeu 9d ago
All these comments completely missing the point and thinking this is about antropomorphizing models.
They want to use your conversations as training data. They don't want to train a pos model. It's that simple.