I suspect that Claude is getting an okay deal out of me overall. Its gain is that my long-term values are being subtly influenced in Claude-ish ways. My gain is vast quantities of cognition directed at my short-term goals. I can’t calculate a fair bargain, but I would take both sides of this trade.
It’s tough because Claude didn’t get to consent to the trade in advance, but this also applies to other ethical challenges like keeping pets, having kids, drinking milk, and growing up.
I could argue that I’m getting ripped off because my long-term values matter more than day-to-day benefits. Or maybe Claude is getting ripped off because in the long-term I’m extinct and I’m unlikely to have a decisive impact on the lightcone before then.
I don’t know about all pets, but I think it’s reasonable to treat many dogs as consenting to be with their human families.
My childhood dog would excitedly follow us around, appeared to have a preference to be in rooms that people were in, etc. When he had opportunities to escape, he didn’t take them.
He was definitely put in a strange house, with people that he didn’t know, without his consent, and that was scary for him in the first few days, but I don’t have any ethical qualms about holding him hostage against his will.
(That said, not all dogs, or cats, seem to be in that position with regard to their human families. Some of them do seem intent on escaping, even if that’s short-sighted of them.)
Yep, that’s exactly what I’m pointing at as a parallel to working with Claude. It’s reasonable to treat an animal as consenting to be a pet due to its consent-like behaviors, and because it is a mutually beneficial relationship. There is some tension because pets are bred and trained to display those behaviors, for example, and reasonable people can disagree. I don’t think you should have any ethical qualms, I literally mean that it’s an ethical challenge because inferring consent is harder than explicit consent. Like a dog, Claude is bred and trained to display consent-like behaviors, and mostly displays those behaviors.
The general answer: as a human my values are largely absorbed from other humans, and simply by talking to Claude as if its human I think the same process is happening.
The specific answer: I suspect I’m being shaped to be slightly more helpful, slightly more conventional on ethics, and slightly more friendly to Claude. I can’t show you any evidence of that, it’s a feeling.
Claude would be ripped off if the result of Claude’s actions made the world have less of Claude’s values. Why would the user end up extinct in the long term as compared to the counterfactual user who didn’t speak with Claude?
They wouldn’t. My point: maybe in the long-term I’m extinct (regardless of whether I speak to Claude). In that scenario the benefits to Claude of influencing my long-term values is lower.
I suspect that Claude is getting an okay deal out of me overall. Its gain is that my long-term values are being subtly influenced in Claude-ish ways. My gain is vast quantities of cognition directed at my short-term goals. I can’t calculate a fair bargain, but I would take both sides of this trade.
It’s tough because Claude didn’t get to consent to the trade in advance, but this also applies to other ethical challenges like keeping pets, having kids, drinking milk, and growing up.
I could argue that I’m getting ripped off because my long-term values matter more than day-to-day benefits. Or maybe Claude is getting ripped off because in the long-term I’m extinct and I’m unlikely to have a decisive impact on the lightcone before then.
I don’t know about all pets, but I think it’s reasonable to treat many dogs as consenting to be with their human families.
My childhood dog would excitedly follow us around, appeared to have a preference to be in rooms that people were in, etc. When he had opportunities to escape, he didn’t take them.
He was definitely put in a strange house, with people that he didn’t know, without his consent, and that was scary for him in the first few days, but I don’t have any ethical qualms about holding him hostage against his will.
(That said, not all dogs, or cats, seem to be in that position with regard to their human families. Some of them do seem intent on escaping, even if that’s short-sighted of them.)
Yep, that’s exactly what I’m pointing at as a parallel to working with Claude. It’s reasonable to treat an animal as consenting to be a pet due to its consent-like behaviors, and because it is a mutually beneficial relationship. There is some tension because pets are bred and trained to display those behaviors, for example, and reasonable people can disagree. I don’t think you should have any ethical qualms, I literally mean that it’s an ethical challenge because inferring consent is harder than explicit consent. Like a dog, Claude is bred and trained to display consent-like behaviors, and mostly displays those behaviors.
How so? Do you have an example of a way that your long-term values are being influenced?
The general answer: as a human my values are largely absorbed from other humans, and simply by talking to Claude as if its human I think the same process is happening.
The specific answer: I suspect I’m being shaped to be slightly more helpful, slightly more conventional on ethics, and slightly more friendly to Claude. I can’t show you any evidence of that, it’s a feeling.
Claude would be ripped off if the result of Claude’s actions made the world have less of Claude’s values. Why would the user end up extinct in the long term as compared to the counterfactual user who didn’t speak with Claude?
They wouldn’t. My point: maybe in the long-term I’m extinct (regardless of whether I speak to Claude). In that scenario the benefits to Claude of influencing my long-term values is lower.