[anematode]

Am I alone in thinking this stuff is nuts? (Currently half way through the article, btw.)

Analyzing "emotion" in the model is completely anthropocentric. If we indulge in the idea that LLMs of sufficient complexity can be conscious, then why is it any more likely that "emotion concepts" cause suffering any more than, say, reading ugly code? Maybe getting stuck in token loops is the most excruciating thing imaginable. The only logically coherent thing to do, if you're concerned about model welfare, is stop your training and inference.

Relatedly, I hope everyone involved in model welfare is an outspoken vegetarian, as that addresses a much more immediate problem.

[justinclift]

> Analyzing "emotion" in the model is completely anthropocentric.

Yeah, asking a text generator designed to sound as-human-as-possible about its "welfare" then actually giving credence to the output is a category error.

It's like asking a ceramic mug with "Best Dad!" written on the side if I'm the best dad, then uncritically just believing the words painted there. :( :( :(

[niobe]

Read the first few paragraphs, it's completely unhinged. Once I actually grasped what "model welfare" was, I noped out.