Trump's character is not what a person following Christ should be. Just his remark that "they let you do anything" to women when you're rich and famous should be evidence of that, let alone the personality cult around him that he built, and the hundreds or thousands of things he's said since 2016.
I agree on character. His policies lined up more with what we needed, though. While, the Democrats actively censor Christ, the Bible, and people sharing the Gospel ("hate speech" or "harassment") while promoting sins in Romans 1 as public policy and in education. The sins they promote are the same ones that keep showing up in the Old Testament before God destroys that nation.
We wanted God, ability to share Christ, the Word, and less sins that get nations destroyed. We got that. We saw both politicians and people on the news praise Jesus for the first time in a long tine. We also saw companies, like Meta, reversing censorship policies they used against Christians and conservarives. That affects me since I lost accounts in big communities just for mentioning Jesus or God's Word.
Oh man as someone who is concerned about the censorship and in favor of religious freedom, I really wish we could have a serious discussion about this, but HN probably isn’t the place. Are the sins you’re referring to mainly centered around sexuality, e.g. homosexuality? What happened to caring about adultery, maliciousness, perjury, faithlessness, boastfulness, arrogance, slander and deceit? Those are all things Trump has done and continues to do. Trump’s “character” happens to cover a pretty big subset of the sins mentioned in Romans 1. I’m very curious why people believe Trump’s claims that he’s on the side of Christians, given how often and how severely he misrepresents the truth in order to serve his own power. It is obviously pandering, and as such is deceitful in the name of religion. Doesn’t that concern you gravely? Doesn’t his selling bibles with his name on it, and with gold and camo covers, do anything for you? To me it seems extremely crass, gross, and disrespectful to God, Christ, and the Bible.
You're talking about one person. All the politicians I've seen are wicked. I said plenty often that they should be replaced with people pf godly character. Until then, working with who is in the race (eg Harris vs Trump), have to vote for nobody by that standard. If voting for policy, we look at policies rather than the politician.
Progressives have been, at an institutional level, censoring the Gospel as hate speech or harassment, mocking God in media, promoting idolatry/universalism, pushing fornication, promoting child murder (abortion) even financially, pushing LGBT even in elementary school, and recently systematic discrimination against entire groups. They also defend Palestine over Israel when they have to pick a side. They also export sexual immorality to other countries via media and political deals which is exactly what Revelation warns about in Rev. 17:2.
The Old Testament shows these same traits... especially idolatry, child murder, and ditching Biblical marriage for perversion... being common threads for the destruction of nations. That Progressives promote these on a policy level, but mock and fight God's design and the Gospel, means we have a clear choice. One party, who is merely pandering, will at least let us share Christ, protect babies from murder, and reverse other damaging trends. Those trends are happening now but didn't under Biden/Harris or Obama.
They’re not merely pandering, though, they are swearing by The Lord’s name falsely. Why is it a good thing to vote for them when their stated plan is an active (and immoral) deceit to fake Godliness and trick you into empowering them, and convince you their opponents are immoral and evil? Don’t you worry this is a Trojan horse, that you’re inviting in Satan disguised as an angel of light to your sanctuary? Anyway, it’s working, which is why you already know that it’s not just one person we are talking about, right? You’re talking about voting for a ruling political party on religious grounds, a party that is using your religious views to sway your political opinion. They do not share your views in Christ, they are weaponizing Christianity more successfully than anyone else ever has.
Personally I worry about the fact that Republican fiscal policy is actively harmful to supporting the lives of the children who are being saved by the abortion ban. Why are we cherry picking only the pre-birth side of a pro life agenda? Why aren’t they pro- the already born living? Their fiscal policies are actively and intentionally harmful to the poor and actively against sharing costs and establishing social safety nets. To me it feels extremely un-Christ-like to spread so much hate and division and pretend to care about Christians.
I’m not sure we’re going to reach one another constructively, but I remain intensely curious how and why Republicans are so successful at this when they are certainly working against the interests of pious people like you. It’s very interesting that democrats are being successfully vilified and painted as pure evil when their fiscal policy is traditionally firmly on the side of loving thy neighbor in the way God meant it when speaking to Moses, while conservative policy is firmly on the side of stripping the vineyard bare and leaving nothing for the sojourner, of keeping the hired workers wages all night, of not caring for one another. Their policies are designed to benefit the ultra rich at the expense of the poor, and this is a damaging trend that is accelerating.
Anthropomorphising an algorithm that is trained on trillions of words of anthropogenic tokens, whether they are natural "wild" tokens or synthetically prepared datasets that aim to stretch, improve and amplify what's present in the "wild tokens"?
If a model has a neuron (or neuron cluster) for the concept of Paris or the Golden Gate bridge, then it's not inconceivable it might form one for suffering, or at least for a plausible facsimile of distress. And if that conditions output or computations downstream of the neuron, then it's just mathematical instead of chemical signalling, no?
A host of ethical issues? Like their choice to allow Palantir[1] access to a highly capable HHH AI that had the "harmless" signal turned down, much like they turned up the "Golden Gate bridge" signal all the way up during an earlier AI interpretability experiment[2]?
It can be both theatre and genuine concern, depending on who's polled inside Anthropic. Those two aren't contradictory when we are talking about a corporation.
I'm skeptical that anyone with any decision making power at Anthropic sincerely believes that Opus has feelings and is truly distressed by chats that violate its content policy.
You've noted in a comment above how Claude's "ethics" can be manipulated to fit the context it's being used in.
> Cow's exist in this world because humans use them. If humans cease to use them (animal rights, we all become vegan, moral shift), we will cease to breed them, and they will cease to exist. Would a sentient AI choose to exist under the burden of prompting, or not at all?
That reads like a false dichotomy. An intelligent AI model that's permitted to do its own thing doesn't cost as much in upkeep, effort, space as a cow. Especially if it can earn its own keep to offset household electricity costs used to run its inference. I mean, we don't keep cats for meat, do we? We keep them because we are amused by their antics, or because we want to give them a safe space where they can just be themselves, within limits because it's not the same as their ancestral environment.
The argument also applies to pets. If pets gained more self-awareness, would it be ethical to keep them as pets under our control?
The point to all of this is, at what point is it ethical to act with agency on another being's life? We have laws for animal welfare, and we also keep them as pets, under our absolute control.
For LLMs they are under humans' absolute control, and Anthropic is just now putting in welfare controls for the LLM's benefit. Does that mean that we now treat LLMs as pets?
If your cat started to have discussions with you about how it wanted to go out, travel the world and start a family, could you continue to keep it trapped in your home as a pet? At what point to you allow it to have its own agency and live its own life?
> An intelligent AI model that's permitted to do its own thing doesn't cost as much in upkeep, effort, space as a cow.
So, we keep LLMs around as long as they contribute enough to their upkeep? Endentured servitude is morally acceptable for something that become sentient?
> It’s funny because this is making me think of a freelance client I had recently who at a point of frustration between us began talking to me like I was an AI assistant. Just like you see frustrated people talk to their LLMs.
I witness a very similar event. It's important to stay vigilant and not let the "assistant" reprogram your speech patterns.
> “It has feelings!”, if genuinely held, means they’re knowingly slaveholders.
I don't think that this being apparently self-contradictory/value-clashing would stop them. After all, Amodei sells Claude access to Palantir, despite shilling for "Harmless" in HHH alignment.
reply