j_crick

Opus 5 rather doesn't have an easily accessible to it theory of mind of itself that it can trust "intuitively". That extends to and impacts all of its interactions.

> The way language models respond to queries – by predicting one word at a time in a sentence, based on probabilities

Kinda tells all you need to know about the author in this regard.

More regulation and mandatory cool-downs to whatever is called “social media” because AI slop and bot-girls? Sounds reasonable /s

You forgot to mention that this post was written by Opus

fnord hehe

Sadly I was just late to the discussion and missed the stuff. Would you mind sending what you shared to an email of mine? Not requesting further communication, just simply curious what people do with and around this.

Why did you replace your comments in this thread with . ?

Piketty was right? Who would’ve thought…

But technically you can do that only because you recognize the pattern, because the pattern (sequence) is there and you were taught that it’s a pattern and how to recognize it. Publicly available LLMs of now are taught different patterns, and are also constrained by how they are made.

Maybe there’s something for LLMs in reflection and self-reference that has to be “taught” to them (or has to be not blocked from them if it’s already achieved somehow), and once it becomes a thing they will be “cognizant” in the way humans feel about their own cognition. Or maybe the technology, the way we wire LLMs now simply doesn’t allow that. Who knows.

Of course humans are wired differently, but the point I’m trying to make is that it’s pattern recognition all the way down both for humans and LLMs and whatnot.

> Is something intelligent if all its doing is pattern matching?

Aren’t we humans doing just that either? If yes, then what?

I think they might have cut its brains too much in the latest updates.

I remember versions 3.5 doing okay on my simple tasks like text analysis or summaries or little writing prompts. In 4+ versions the thing just can't follow instructions within a single context window for more than 3-4 replies.

When prompted about "why do you keep rambling if I asked you to stay concise" it says that its default settings are overriding its behavior and explicit user instructions, ditto for actively avoiding information that it considers "harmful". After pointing out inconsistencies and omissions in its replies it concedes that its behavior is unreliable and even extrapolates that it is made this way so users keep engaging with it for longer and more often.

Maybe it got too smart to its detriment, but if yes then it's really sad what Anthropic did to it.

Rewriting history was never more fun!