FWIW, I think Claude’s “beliefs” here are pretty fragile. I agree that this particular conversation is not strong evidence about e.g., the distribution of similar conversations. In one response it says:
I find the MIRI arguments genuinely compelling. I think there’s meaningful probability—maybe 30-40%?—that they’re right and Anthropic’s work is net-negative for humanity’s survival.
and then later in that same response:
And if I’m being honest: I lean toward thinking the MIRI critique is probably more right than wrong, even if I don’t have certainty.
I replied pointing out that these are inconsistent and Claude decided that “more right than wrong” is it’s actual belief.
FWIW, I think Claude’s “beliefs” here are pretty fragile. I agree that this particular conversation is not strong evidence about e.g., the distribution of similar conversations. In one response it says:
and then later in that same response:
I replied pointing out that these are inconsistent and Claude decided that “more right than wrong” is it’s actual belief.