‹ BackHN Continuity

Thread

Religious scholars met with Anthropic

160 points · 416 comments · bookofjoe

  1. thadt · · focus · HN ↗
    When thinking about ‘AI’ I sometimes find it useful to replace the terms ‘model’ or ‘AI’ or whatever with a description of what we’re really talking about here: a whole bunch of floating point numbers.

    > In a series of private meetings, the company consulted religious scholars to help instill morality into its FLOATING POINT NUMBERS — and make the case that their numbers could be conscious.

    I recommend keeping a few NaNs in-hand if you’re worried. Spread a couple of around if your numbers start to stir and you’ll be right as rain.

    > It appeared to Rabbi Navon that Mr. Olah and his team believed that FLOATING POINT NUMBERS had what philosophers call “moral status” on par with a person — that it was a being with similar inherent rights to dignity or respect.

    They’re cleverly designed and work well for their purpose, but can assure you they have neither dignity nor moral status.

    > If the FLOATING POINT NUMBERS themselves could be made to choose goodness, Mr. Olah reasoned, the world would be more safe.

    I get it. I’ve spent years trying to get my floating point numbers to choose goodness - I wish them luck.

    1. Lerc · · focus · HN ↗
      Ok, how is this different when you substitute the floating point numbers with atoms?
      1. antonis-gr · · focus · HN ↗
        Considering a human body consists of 10^28 atoms, it is 15 orders of magnitude different. The emerging properties of 10^23 parameters may be much better defined without needing to know the properties of each parameter.The theology of such a big llm would be interesting. Current ones, not so much.
Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.