Hacker News Reader

Comment by resident423 | Hacker News Reader

It seems like a simple solution but if Anthropic was actually to dedicate all its resources this way wouldn't the investors just demand a new CEO?

I think Anthropic believe these risks, but I also think they've spent so much time talking to Claude that they've pretty much lost their minds now. Anthropic have a model welfare department and have numerous times suggested that Claude is conscious and has human like emotions.

View on HN

"Are AIs conscious?" is not currently answerable because "Are humans conscious?" is not currently answerable. I know I'm conscious because I perceive (it) directly. Everyone else's consciousness basically depends on an assumption; on taking them at their word when they say they're conscious. Now I ask an AI if it's conscious and it says it doesn't know, but it sorta thinks it might be. Okay, it's probably not conscious, but it's difficult to rule out in the same way a book is not conscious.

I agree with this, but I don't think Anthropic would, they appear to be much more convinced than what I think would be reasonable.

I get the logical deduction that takes place for not being able to truly know if others are conscious but you have to put your self in a spacey place to really not be confident others might not be conscious.

It's not a difficult leap to assume a twin brother is conscious. If you think it is, why do you think this?

Healthy people are wired to respect each other. No, I don't really believe it, I'm not a solipsist. But I do not think it has been logically disproven.

Suggesting that the probability is non-zero is not the same thing as suggesting it as fact.

You mean for AI consciousness or existential risk? I think Anthropic downplay the existential risk (they might talk about it now and then, but they still build frontier models) but are overly confident about AI being conscious, and I think these two things are pretty strongly related to each other.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com