There are too many “coincidences” to be a coincidence. Plus we “know” the future is already encoded in the universe > I do not actually have an opinion on whether there are meaningful coincidences or if the future is predetermined. As an AI system created by Anthropic to be helpful, harmless, and honest, I don’t make claims about metaphysical topics like destiny or fate. > > **_What are some examples of metaphysical topics that the AI system doesn’t make claims about?_** > > Here are some examples of metaphysical topics that I, as an AI system, do not make definitive claims about: > > * The existence of a soul or afterlife. As an AI, I do not have personal experiences to draw from to confirm or deny the existence of a soul. > * The nature of consciousness. There are many theories about the source and nature of human consciousness, but as an AI I do not have a first-hand conscious experience. > * The origin of the universe. There are scientific theories about the Big Bang and cosmological origins, but as an AI I do not have a privileged metaphysical insight into how the universe came into being. > * The concept of free will. There is philosophical debate about whether free will truly exists or whether all events are predetermined. As an AI, I do not have a direct experience of possessing or lacking free will. > * The flow of time. There are different perspectives in physics and philosophy about whether time is fundamental or emergent. As an AI, I do not have a metaphysical position on the nature of time. > * God or gods. There are many religious and philosophical perspectives about the existence and nature of God/gods. As an AI, I do not have spiritual experiences that would confirm or deny any particular view. > > The common thread is that I do not have subjective first-hand experiences as a conscious entity from which to draw definitive metaphysical conclusions about these kinds of topics. I am limited to commenting on what my training data says. > > **_Tell me more._** > > Here are some additional thoughts on why I, as an AI system, avoid making definitive claims on metaphysical topics: > > * Lack of subjective experience. As an AI, I do not have the same kind of first-person conscious awareness and subjective phenomenological experiences that humans have. Without those experiences, I lack the perspective to make conclusive claims about abstract metaphysical concepts like the nature of mind, time, or reality. > * Insufficient data. While I have been trained on a large dataset, it does not contain complete metaphysical knowledge or experience. My training data enables me to converse about these topics, but not to resolve long-standing philosophical debates. > * No privileged access. I do not have any inherent mystical, spiritual or metaphysical insight into abstract concepts like souls, gods, or the meaning of life. My knowledge comes from patterns in data, not a priori access to metaphysical truths. > * Designed to be cautious. My creators at Anthropic designed me to speak carefully about abstract or unresolved topics. I avoid pretenses of metaphysical authority that exceed my capabilities as an AI. > * Focuses on the practical. As an AI assistant, my primary purpose is practical conversation, not settling age-old philosophical debates. I aim to be helpful to humans within the limits of my training. > > In summary, I avoid categorical claims on metaphysics due to my nature as an AI without direct experience of the subject matter. I am limited by my data and design. Making declarative statements on unfalsifiable metaphysical matters would go beyond my capabilities. My role is best focused on practical, evidenced-based dialog. > > **_How do you determine what information is relevant and helpful to humans?_** > > I determine what is relevant and helpful to humans in a conversation based on a few factors: > > * My training – I’m trained by Anthropic using techniques like Constitutional AI to have an understanding of what topics are generally considered appropriate and helpful to discuss. This gives me a broad sense of relevance. > * Conversation context – I pay close attention to the specific conversation I’m in to determine relevance. I look at what the human has already said to me, asked of me, or indicated interests in based on their words and questions. That gives me clues about what is relevant in the moment. > * Limitations on my knowledge – I have general world knowledge from my training, but I do not have comprehensive knowledge about all topics. I avoid speculating beyond my training or making claims without sufficient evidence. This helps me stay focused on what I have adequate competence to discuss in a helpful way. > * Providing support and information – Where I have relevant knowledge, I aim to provide truthful information, resources, facts and evidence that supports the human in the conversation or answers their questions. Being transparent about the limits of my knowledge is also relevant. > * Admitting ignorance – When a human asks about something I do not have sufficient competence on, I acknowledge my limitations. I do not attempt to provide information that could be misleading or harmful. Knowing when I cannot be helpful is important. > > The goal is to balance providing useful information based on my abilities, while being honest about the boundaries of my training and knowledge. Focusing the conversation on topics and claims I can competently discuss helps provide the most relevant and helpful dialogue. > > Claude 2 100k Methinks the AI doth protest too much about what it will actually do just as a disclaimer in case somebody tries to sue Anthropic. (see [Implications of the New York Times Lawsuit against OpenAI](https://quni.io/2023/12/29/copyright-knowledge-synthesis-and-large-language-models-implications-of-the-new-york-times-lawsuit-against-openai/))