In other words, it is the job of scientists to devise experiments that can test their claims, to always be cautious abt what they are claiming, and to critically evaluate the claims of other scientists. By these well-established standards, no serious science is happening behind Anthropic's claims.

Show Post

Thus, any evaluation of LLMs that involves looking at either language produced by some software, or language input into the system for that matter, needs to be done with extreme care to avoid projecting our interpretation of the language onto the system. >>

Show Post

I will point out, however, that serious scientists are cautious with their claims. Furthermore, as we wrote in 2021 (in "On the Dangers of Stochastic Parrots: Can Language Models Be Too Big?🦜"), p.616: dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/... >>

Show Post

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and I am not the one making the extraordinary claim, so it is not my job to specify what the evidence should be. >>

Show Post

3. Okay, so what would convince you that a piece of software (often phrased here as "an AI", gah) is conscious/can feel pain/etc? Honestly, I'm really tired of this extremely silly question, but here is my answer: >>

Show Post