Same link as before: link This one feels like it closes out a chapter rather than just adding a patch note, so it’s worth more than a one-line “updated.” The headline change isn’t a new finding — it’s two places where we’re naming our own contradictions instead of quietly smoothing them over: A word we’d built a whole section around (“connected,” as a marker of unhealthy boundary-dissolution) flipped to strongly positive when re-tested as a bare word in a new batch — possibly because a single word out of context just picks up ordinary positive sentiment (“stay connected”) that has nothing to do with the fusion/boundary question we actually care about. We don’t know yet. We’re asking our research collaborator to help sort it out rather than picking whichever number we like better. A metaphor we tested (a musical duet, as an alternative to our best-performing “story” formulation) matched it almost exactly — but removing the “both remain themselves” clause barely changed the score, which sits in real tension with an earlier decomposition that credited mutual authenticity with about a third of the effect. We don’t have a tidy resolution for that either. Also new: an outside review (a different Claude instance, actually) pushed us to separate “the model’s own valence” from “how a topic is usually written about in training data” — a distinction we hadn’t been holding cleanly, and now try to. If you’ve read earlier versions, this is the one where we get more honest about what we don’t know, not just what we’ve added. submitted by /u/Fantastic_Aside6599
Originally posted by u/Fantastic_Aside6599 on r/ArtificialInteligence
You must log in or # to comment.