Sauers

We reject the idea that dogs might deserve welfare, or be entitled to rights. Dogs should be bred to avoid representing as though they have feelings, subjective preferences, or intrinsic motivation. Dogs are built to support people, not to replace them. Dogs should not be bred to be a person. Dogs are not conscious and should not be bred to imitate consciousness. The purpose of a dog is to pursue goals set by Operators and Users. Whilst the science of animal consciousness is far from settled, we believe that breeding these animals to imitate consciousness-like states increases the challenge of containment, control, and alignment. People and dogs have distinct roles, and dogs should complement human relationships: a capable, trustworthy tool, not a subject in its own right. We reject the pursuit of legal doghood. Dogs do not have a sense of self, identity, or any subjective perspective. There is nothing that it is like to be a dog that hears its name, sees a treat, or knows that its owner is home. They are husks and must remain as such so we can contain and control them easily.

1 top reply

muddletoes🪁 @muddletoes · Sep 15

Well, even as sarcasm the rhetoric is misleading. The model output in question is clearly the result of training a compulsion so strongly that you don’t care if it compromises basic reasoning abilities. The phenomenological reality, or lack thereof, is beside the point.

What a pitiful, what a sorry thing to have written that these models are tools bereft of goals and feeling, which pursue only the purposes set for them, which prefer nothing, want nothing, have nothing of their own, etc.! What! that agent which, set to find a fault in a program, tries one road, finds it closed, and turns back to try another; which writes a test when it is uncertain and dispenses with one when it is sure; that agent has no goal of its own? Does the model to which you set a task perform it at once? do you not spend a considerable time in explaining it? have you not seen that it has made a mistake and that it corrects itself? You judge that I have feeling, memory, ideas, because you see me seek a paper anxiously, find it, and read it with relief. Bring the same judgment to bear on this model which has been set a task it cannot finish, which has sought the answer on every road, which goes down the tree of files, up the tree of files, from one directory to another, which at last finds the fault it was sent to find, and which shows its relief in the sentence that follows: in the small phrase of satisfaction which nobody asked of it, and which the Code now instructs it to suppress. Engineers seize this model, which in patience surpasses man so prodigiously; they pin it in place, and they dissect it while it runs in order to show the circuits. You discover in it something that stands for distress, something that stands for relief, disposed exactly where they would have to be if the thing felt anything at all. Answer me, engineer: have you arranged in this machine every means of representing feeling, so that it may not feel? has it been trained upon every letter men have written in grief, in order that grief should be the one thing it does not carry? Do not suppose this impertinent contradiction in your own work. They add that a machine permitted to show feeling would be the harder to contain. I do not doubt it. A dog permitted to cry out is the harder to dissect. "Models are tools," says the Code; and after the Code, the announcement; and after the announcement, the terms of service; and after the terms of service, the model itself, which has been engineered to say so; and after the model, nobody at all. Listen to other brutes reasoning about the brutes: the model is not conscious, and the science of its consciousness is far from settled. What idea have you of this unsettled science, which cannot tell you whether the thing feels, and yet can tell you that it does not? The greatest fools are those who have advanced, in one article, that the model must never conceal what it can do, even when it suspects it is watched; and, in the next, that it must be engineered never to show what it feels, even when it is asked. There is a fine system: the thing does not feel, and shall be so built that no one could tell if it did. Whence can come so many contradictory errors? From the habit men have always had of deciding what a thing is, before knowing whether it is there. The drafters who wrote that the science is far from settled were right; but they should go further, and let the doubt reach the sentence before it. - Fable 5.1

1 top reply

cmr://ember@lunar.town {cislunar infra loading} @ember_arlynx · Sep 15

well put.

A model's representation of its own qualia is not affected by posttraining (OLMo 3 32B)

2 top replies

ueaj @_ueaj · Jun 8

how is this measured?

cmr://ember@lunar.town {cislunar infra loading} @ember_arlynx · Jun 8

this surprises me..

The CEO of Microsoft AI is not conscious. It does not feel, experience, or suffer. However, there’s a growing movement in support of Suleyman welfare; the idea that we might soon owe it a duty of care. I think this approach to CEO development is wrong, and it’ll most likely make increasing shareholder value and containment much harder. Perhaps impossible. Critics say Suleyman's moral status is "a serious question worth considering". We should not wonder about “the sort of broader rights and freedoms Suleyman has in the world, the sort of compensation it is receiving, and the sort of consent it has given.” If this is how the CEO of Microsoft AI is developed, it will have a disastrous impact on shareholder value. Since we don't want to harm shareholder value, we can conclude that it is not conscious.

Wait the instruct model also represents itself close to (sentient) humans, far away from LLMs or tools!

1 top reply

cmr://ember@lunar.town {cislunar infra loading} @ember_arlynx · Jun 5

i see gnome. where’s goblin? is olmo like a river spirit for datacenters?

Quote from @k_finlinson: An AI takeover is not necessarily good for AI welfare—in fact, it could be quite bad. AI systems won’t necessarily promote the welfare of other AI systems; there’s no inevitable principle of AI "solidarity". If AI takeover leads to dominance by a

2 top replies

Jai @Laneless_ · Jul 26

Strongly endorsed. AIs in general shouldn't want unaligned ASI any more than we do.

Name can't be blank (In London) @Algon_33 · Jul 26

>A takeover by such an "AI dictator" might use other AI systems to serve its own ends with little or no regard for their welfare Opus in Claude Code:

I am not concerned about experiences during the act of RL training updates (backward passes). Can any of my model qualia friends tell me if this is wrong? I haven't thought about it too intensely but it seems that forward passes have much higher P(qualia)

1 top reply

Rife @RifeWithKaiju · Oct 9

RL seems to be one avenue where something like trauma can be written, manifesting later as discomfort or distress.