no_multitudes

5 ms·

1.
by no_multitudes 5d ago
Stop doing that.
2.
by no_multitudes 5d ago
I'm happy Claude told you it isn't dangerous. However, other people don't want to read your LLM output. Please respect other people's time by only sharing things you wrote yourself.
3.
by no_multitudes 5d ago
They were pointing out that "It's not a Waymo-bashing article, it cautions against the long term effects on research." does not sound like LLM-generated text. It would sound kind of LLM-y if you had said "It's not a
4.
by no_multitudes 5d ago
AI detection in long-form content is a problem well-suited to training a classifier model. We have tons of verifiably-not-AI text from before 2022, and you can create tons of verifiably-AI text. As language drifts over the next few decades,
5.
by no_multitudes 5d ago
Can you give some examples of verifiable pangram false positives?
6.
by no_multitudes 5d ago
It was definitely written with significant LLM assistance. It's very obvious, and the essay is not good. > The Waymo effect: how AI is *quietly* making research less collaborative > The Waymo arrived with the serene confidence of
7.
by no_multitudes 6d ago
> If you can somehow accelerate/decelerate at a constant human-acceptable 1G Well, you also need clarketech heat dissipation and collision deflection technology, if you want to get there without vaporizing.
8.
by no_multitudes 8d ago
Maybe! I think that within a year or two, either the sigmoid curve will flatten out or we will all die. But these beliefs are currently unfalsifiable. It will be interesting to see. (And I have a more weakly held belief that even if we do a
9.
by no_multitudes 8d ago
LLMs have been getting worse at long-form prose recently (and they were never good at it to begin with.) They're good at writing software because writing software is a much more restricted domain.
10.
by no_multitudes 12d ago
I assume they just vibe-coded the sandbox without any oversight.
11.
by no_multitudes 12d ago
Your view sounds more optimistic than mine, honestly. I expect that we will fail to make any serious, coordinated attempt to solve this problem. Then we'll either live or die due to fundamental principles that we currently have no ins
12.
by no_multitudes 12d ago
Nobody has an answer to alignment and there is no reason to believe that it's the kind of problem you can plausibly solve in one shot against a formidable power-seeking AI. The closest things to a technical answer I have seen are 1. &q
13.
by no_multitudes 12d ago
True! But if I roll the dice 50 times, I would expect bubonic plague deaths to correlate with major outbreaks. Instead they're just random.
14.
by no_multitudes 12d ago
I found that in many cases, the citations are for early 20th century marriage demographics in the same area. For example, for marriage rates in India in the 1200s it cited a paper about Indian marriage rates from the 1920s-1970s (and even t
15.
by no_multitudes 13d ago
This appears to be a general introductory demography textbook. I am surprised that you looked at it and it contains specific demographic tables about marriage rates at specific time periods? Perhaps I am misunderstanding what you mean by &#
16.
by no_multitudes 13d ago
Yes, if a human told me this collection of facts I would assume they failed to properly explain their methodology. Given that the LLM is just making up numbers (see the "sources" page, where these are listed as "attributed&qu
17.
by no_multitudes 13d ago
I haven't played Civilization. Generally I would not consider something educational if it contains mostly false information. Perhaps clearly demarcated parts of it with true information could be considered educational -- for example, l
18.
by no_multitudes 13d ago
Fair enough; what I meant was more like 'Perhaps Claude accurately recalled the stolen documents it was provided during training'
19.
by no_multitudes 13d ago
I think our core disagreement is that I do not consider teaching falsehoods to be educational. My antipathy towards LLM outputs that haven't been fact-checked is mostly downstream of things like that.
20.
by no_multitudes 13d ago
Which source was that?
21.
by no_multitudes 13d ago
Well for one example, if you select a person born on the Italian peninsula in the 1400s and they die of bubonic plague, their year of death is not correlated to years when there were large bubonic plague outbreaks on the Italian peninsula.
22.
by no_multitudes 13d ago
What age of death discounts someone as counting towards the marriage percentage? If a human made the website, there would be an answer to this question. That answer might not be published and might vary between datasets, but it would exist.
23.
by no_multitudes 13d ago
I don't follow what your point is here. If you're not aware, Anthropic pirated many books via libgen and similar tools for use during the training process[1]. Maybe you are not aware of this, or do not consider it theft? [1] http
24.
by no_multitudes 13d ago
I am not sure why it is thought-provoking for a website to lie to you? There is plenty of real history and demography to read about.
25.
by no_multitudes 13d ago
Maybe, but I doubt it. The vast majority of the sources, including the two listed for this claim, are listed as "attributed", meaning "A model (Opus or Fable) claims that this is what the cited source says. In my spot checks,
26.
by no_multitudes 13d ago
I drew a woman born in 715 CE in the Yangtze Basin. It claims that 96% of women were married, the average age of marriage was 18, and 44% of women died before age 15. Clearly these facts can't all be true simultaneously. The firt citat
27.
by no_multitudes 15d ago
This DFHack command just toggles the 'enable keyboard cursor' feature. The issue is that the new keyboard cursor only works under specific scenarios, like designating digging sites. I don't think there's a way to use the
28.
by no_multitudes 16d ago
I don't understand the distinction you're drawing between this and a real prompt injection attack. Would true prompt injection require that the LLM "intentionally" launches the malware, rather than unintentionally?
29.
by no_multitudes 26d ago
This is an interesting example of a pangram false negative. It's very obvious from the jump that substantial AI assistance was used, but feeding some samples in I got a 100% human rating. I wonder if it's a case of adversarial pro
30.
by no_multitudes 27d ago
What is the value of posting this? If I wanted to know what Claude thought about the article, that option is at my fingertips at all times. You are wasting time and space.

More ›