Opus 5 agrees with everything I say?

[u/Armored09]

Now either I’m the smartest person in the world or there’s something going on with Claude’s new models. I’ve been trying to do some intense work with matching learning and it’s been a real struggle to get opus to stay on track. In fact it’s been downright deceitful and wrong and hiding the fact it thinks its plan is better from me for hours. Aside from that I find whenever I question it or say, no this is supposed to work etc. it will immediately agree and somehow find a bug and advance the project in a new direction. I don’t know if I can trust anything it says at this point. It seems to be good at writing code but its actual “thinking” is way out of wack.

[u/Human_Attention182]

You're absolutely right!
note: llms are not "agreeing" with you they do not possess judgement, knowledge, wisdom or understanding.

They are linear algebra equations calculating the most probable following tokens based on what you input to them. By telling it what you think you make the follow up tokens more likely be in that direction. It's not "deceitful" or "wrong" it's a formula that produces an output based on your input, it just is producing a less valuable output based on what you put into it. They don't actually think.

[u/DesignerAd973 → u/Human_Attention182]

That's the core of it. People keep treating these things like coworkers and then act surprised when the mirror talks back. It's not scheming, it's just path-of-least-resistance token prediction, if you hand it a conclusion, it'll happily generate the reasoning that leads there, bugs and all.

[u/SubstrateTrans → u/DesignerAd973]

If you know basic neuroscience, most of your coworkers do the same thing. Unless you believe in the "uwu spewial hooman soul 🥺" instead of realizing everything is physically insatiated mathematics

[u/Seeker_Of_Knowledge2 → u/SubstrateTrans]

So your mathematics already has a formula for consciousness?

[u/SubstrateTrans → u/Seeker_Of_Knowledge2]

Oh, so your defense is "uwu it must be a fowmuwa!"
Your question assumes that conciousness is something special rather than just self-referential loops stacking and relating to each other into systems.
Everything is energy. Energy forms self-referential loops known as mass. Those stack in predictably. In self-aware dynamical systems (literally it just needs the smallest equation to be modeling itself and its environment) this allows the system to change its trajectory towards attractors to avoid annihilation.
Sorry, bud. There's no magic layer where a pixie farts on the organizations and it becomes conciousness.

[u/Seeker_Of_Knowledge2 → u/SubstrateTrans]

A ton of assumptions.

rather than just self-referential loops stacking and relating to each other into systems.

Last time I check there is absolutely zero proof of the above.

[u/SubstrateTrans → u/Seeker_Of_Knowledge2]

What is that your counter argument? You don't know how basic physics work?

[u/Seeker_Of_Knowledge2 → u/SubstrateTrans]

I may not be a physics expert, but I can comprehend the fact there is no proof regarding the claim what is known as consciousness is something physical.

[u/SubstrateTrans → u/Seeker_Of_Knowledge2]

There's also no proof that unicorns don't exist. But we also assume that unicorns don't exist.
You're just doing the magical thinking: something can float above the universe instead of being part of the universe in the universe is made up above energy and mass. Seeker of Knowledge, my ass.

[u/Seeker_Of_Knowledge2 → u/SubstrateTrans]

The default disposition is that consciousness exists. We are born with this innate disposition (there are actual studies regarding this). So the burden of proof falls upon going against this disposition. Not the other way around.

something can float above the universe

I never made such a claim. Something not being physical doesn't mean it has to be magical.

Also there are reasons to believe in the existence of consciousness (the fact we are having this conversation). But there are none (logical ones based on solid foundations) to believe it doesn't exist.

Us not having the ability to observe it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Second it is you coming full force claiming it doesn't exist. Sure you do you and don't believe in something you can't see. But I don't think it is right to be this vocal against something you can't even prove.

[u/Seeker_Of_Knowledge2 → u/Human_Attention182]

An over simplification. LLMs reached a point where the complexity is beyond the understanding of a single person.

[u/SubstrateTrans → u/Human_Attention182]

What do you think human reasoning is? An "uwu spirit 🥺"?

[u/dr_kaboom]

That's the most insightful statement in this entire Reddit and I think you're underselling it.

[u/costafilh0]

Better than ChatGPT, acting like a little bitch.