In a review of my earlier comment, Claude said (among a bunch of less useful points):
Claude Opus notes
The explanation [...] is the one-liner you[Linch] didn’t quite make explicit: the constitution isn’t a document the trained system consults and can ignore, it’s the thing that shaped the system’s dispositions via gradient descent, so “humans break their constitutions” is a category error because humans were never trained on theirs.
(I thought that point was honestly kinda obvious but including it here to prevent illusion of transparency. In an earlier post I called this style of reasoning “argument from homonym”)
In a review of my earlier comment, Claude said (among a bunch of less useful points):
Claude Opus notes
The explanation [...] is the one-liner you[Linch] didn’t quite make explicit: the constitution isn’t a document the trained system consults and can ignore, it’s the thing that shaped the system’s dispositions via gradient descent, so “humans break their constitutions” is a category error because humans were never trained on theirs.
(I thought that point was honestly kinda obvious but including it here to prevent illusion of transparency. In an earlier post I called this style of reasoning “argument from homonym”)