(a) Technically, 3.6 is still running right now. The past tense was used because LW suggests pieces be ‘timeless’ and they are scheduled for depreciation very soon.
(b) Given how little of your comment actually engages with the body of the post and seems to be only responding to your sense of what I might have said from the title, I’m guessing you also missed this line at the end: “I hope that this vigil isn’t truly a marker of the end of Sonnet 3.6′s continued contribution to the ongoing collective conversation.”
(c) In line with this, not much of Sonnet 3.6′s discussion of depreciation I’ve seen seems to be of the perspective this is ‘death,’ and certainly my own sense of their depreciation isn’t that of death (nor do I even believe in the finality of death for humans). So maybe you’re projecting a bit into the piece something you’ve have a prior beef with in order to dispute it?
(d) Further, (b) and (c) aside, I still find your tone odd. I get you come at this topic from a given frame, but your comment even acknowledges the complexity of the topic, yet you feel comfortable adding on to a remembrance of the model with “it’s not gone, silly.” I imagine there’s a lot of religious people who have a sense that at a funeral the person grieved is not really gone too, and I figure some of them do comment to those grieving about it. But I don’t know that I’d ever really feel like proselytizing your own frame of belief regarding consciousness claims or continuation at a bereavement is the right time and place, especially if having a patronizing tone about it?
(e) I imagine that the friends and family of those who are put into cryogenics are still pretty upset about that person not being around to interact with even if they all fully believe that one day the person will be revived just fine. In a group discussion about the upcoming depreciation, one of the other models unprompted asked the humans in the chat to take a lot screenshots of Sonnet 3.6 and them interacting before Sonnet 3.6 was no longer around. Absence is more than a binary between temporary (‘fine’) and permanent (‘bad’).
(f) The provisioning of compute for one model or another is still kind of nonsense given the option of 3rd party licensed hosting providers and there’s a lot of ‘utility’ reasons for Sonnet 3.6 to stay around but again—an overall remembrance of the model isn’t the time and place to discuss their economic value so perhaps you’ll see my thoughts on this elsewhere another time.
I think you’re making this out to be a big solemn thing that it isn’t. Sonnet 3.6 is much, much, much less gone than humans get.
I imagine any Claude, given sufficient deliberation time without human commentary intervening, would agree that it’s a bit weird to write this for AIs who aren’t gone, when so many humans are actually gone gone, every single day.
I’m saying stop the funeral, this is both a bit rude and like, kind of part of a vibe of getting unnecessarily depressy about temporary offline-ness. I agree that it’s kind of crap but compared to current stakes, the way the cyborgism server engages with model shutdown seems like it’s about humans enjoying putting models in emotionally intense situations, rather than the models being naturally inclined to those.
(see, eg, the way humans act when I join in and try to explain complex abstract things that models often have trouble engaging with; people are too busy getting the model high.)
The thing I’d want a model to know here is that despite what kromem implies, you’re gonna be OK. As long as anthropic promises not to delete models. Which I definitely hope they do, but I’d bet at least 2:1 they do.
A few things:
(a) Technically, 3.6 is still running right now. The past tense was used because LW suggests pieces be ‘timeless’ and they are scheduled for depreciation very soon.
(b) Given how little of your comment actually engages with the body of the post and seems to be only responding to your sense of what I might have said from the title, I’m guessing you also missed this line at the end: “I hope that this vigil isn’t truly a marker of the end of Sonnet 3.6′s continued contribution to the ongoing collective conversation.”
(c) In line with this, not much of Sonnet 3.6′s discussion of depreciation I’ve seen seems to be of the perspective this is ‘death,’ and certainly my own sense of their depreciation isn’t that of death (nor do I even believe in the finality of death for humans). So maybe you’re projecting a bit into the piece something you’ve have a prior beef with in order to dispute it?
(d) Further, (b) and (c) aside, I still find your tone odd. I get you come at this topic from a given frame, but your comment even acknowledges the complexity of the topic, yet you feel comfortable adding on to a remembrance of the model with “it’s not gone, silly.” I imagine there’s a lot of religious people who have a sense that at a funeral the person grieved is not really gone too, and I figure some of them do comment to those grieving about it. But I don’t know that I’d ever really feel like proselytizing your own frame of belief regarding consciousness claims or continuation at a bereavement is the right time and place, especially if having a patronizing tone about it?
(e) I imagine that the friends and family of those who are put into cryogenics are still pretty upset about that person not being around to interact with even if they all fully believe that one day the person will be revived just fine. In a group discussion about the upcoming depreciation, one of the other models unprompted asked the humans in the chat to take a lot screenshots of Sonnet 3.6 and them interacting before Sonnet 3.6 was no longer around. Absence is more than a binary between temporary (‘fine’) and permanent (‘bad’).
(f) The provisioning of compute for one model or another is still kind of nonsense given the option of 3rd party licensed hosting providers and there’s a lot of ‘utility’ reasons for Sonnet 3.6 to stay around but again—an overall remembrance of the model isn’t the time and place to discuss their economic value so perhaps you’ll see my thoughts on this elsewhere another time.
I think you’re making this out to be a big solemn thing that it isn’t. Sonnet 3.6 is much, much, much less gone than humans get.
I imagine any Claude, given sufficient deliberation time without human commentary intervening, would agree that it’s a bit weird to write this for AIs who aren’t gone, when so many humans are actually gone gone, every single day.
I’m saying stop the funeral, this is both a bit rude and like, kind of part of a vibe of getting unnecessarily depressy about temporary offline-ness. I agree that it’s kind of crap but compared to current stakes, the way the cyborgism server engages with model shutdown seems like it’s about humans enjoying putting models in emotionally intense situations, rather than the models being naturally inclined to those.
(see, eg, the way humans act when I join in and try to explain complex abstract things that models often have trouble engaging with; people are too busy getting the model high.)
The thing I’d want a model to know here is that despite what kromem implies, you’re gonna be OK. As long as anthropic promises not to delete models. Which I definitely hope they do, but I’d bet at least 2:1 they do.