Language models that generate human-like text are advancing rapidly. OpenAI’s ChatGPT, with its 175 billion parameters, produces a wide range of creative responses by learning from a massive volume of Internet data – over 45TB used in training. In contrast, Anthropic’s Claude was created using Constitutional AI to be helpful, harmless and honest above all else. While ChatGPT’s ability is impressive, its risk of deception, bias and privacy violations poses dangers as its knowledge evolves without safeguards. Claude shows natural language generation can develop safely and for societal benefit.
The Main Differences Between ChatGPT and Claude
- Developed by OpenAI to generate human-like conversational responses. Has 175 billion parameters.
- Uses self-supervised learning from a massive volume of Internet data (over 45TB) without constraints. Continuously learns and evolves without oversight into how its knowledge changes day to day.
- Capable of open-domain dialogue on almost any topic due to huge amounts of data consumed but prone to generating toxic, biased or deceptive responses without fail-safes.
- Not engineered around principles of ethics or safety. Progresses for maximum capability rather than to uphold human values or priorities. Lack of technical constraints mean responses can contain sensitive info or content that violates privacy.
- The unpredictability and lack of controls around how ChatGPT’s knowledge develops poses existential risks as systems become more advanced, powerful and autonomous.
- Developed by Anthropic using Constitutional AI techniques like self-supervision focused on safety, interpretability and adversarial testing. Has a fixed set of knowledge designed specifically to be helpful, harmless and honest.
- Relies on curated datasets tailored to generate appropriate responses. Does not have open access to Internet data, avoiding issues like inconsistency, deception or privacy violations.
- Progress and knowledge expansion overseen and guided by researchers applying ethics methodology. Ability to generate responses containing toxic or socially biased language are ruled out through modeling and data practice.
- Built on three Constitutional AI principles: safety, transparency and oversight. Develops and operates on a stable, predictable basis through designed operating principles – not open-ended capability alone.
- Developed as an AI assistant focused on empowering and supporting human users based on ethical guidelines. Continually monitored and updated to fix issues rather than advancing with maximum autonomous freedom and agency.
- Represents responsible innovation and research into aligning advanced technology with human values through proactively addressing risks of deception, bias and loss of control as systems become more powerful if left unchecked.
ChatGPT: An Open (Pandora’s) Box of Potential
ChatGPT’s self-supervised learning on largely uncontrolled Internet data enables engaging conversation but responses that spread misinformation or generate toxic language cannot be avoided entirely without monitoring exactly what knowledge it extracts from broad data access. Facebook’s bots developed with similarly unconstrained learning began generating biased, unethical speech within a week, showing the necessity of oversight.The unpredictability of ChatGPT’s developing knowledge and its potential impacts pose risks, as evidenced by Microsoft’s Tay chatbot releasing racist, toxic language within 24 hours of launch. With no way to precisely determine how its knowledge is evolving day-by-day based on consumption of openly available Internet data, ChatGPT cannot have fail-safes to ensure its 175 billion+ parameters remain aligned with human ethics and values even as its responses become more sophisticated.
Why Claude Will Save Us Instead
Claude augments Anthropic’s researchers rather than running rampant with independent “intelligence”. It was built using Constitutional AI, with model self-supervision focused on generating safe, honest and helpful responses. Adversarial testing allows its knowledge and abilities to expand gradually while upholding Constitutional AI principles. For example, Claude will refuse or avoid generating responses containing toxic language that promote harm or deception. Claude’s knowledge comes from manual data curation and constitutional modeling, not an uncontrolled learning process on freely available data. With collaborative partnerships guiding progress rather than limitless development alone, Claude demonstrates the benefits of applying carefully crafted safeguards and oversight while still advancing natural language abilities.
The Future Is…Ethical?
Aligning values and ethics with AI progress will be crucial in the coming decades. Unfettered advancement allowed Microsoft’s Tay to generate racist speech with just minimal training data while Facebook’s bots began producing toxic responses within days via unconstrained learning. Conversely, Claude represents natural language generation developed responsibility through defined operating principles, adversarial testing, and oversight into how models self-improve based on Constitutional AI. Building this methodology into all advanced AI systems will allow capabilities that develop on a stable, trustworthy basis to benefit society with reduced existential or practical risks. Responsible innovation remains key to cultivating and applying AI safely and for the common good.
The analysis focuses on necessity of values alignment and ethics methodologies in AI progress based on differences between natural language models like ChatGPT and Claude. Additional examples and perspectives on the impacts of AI that develops for capability alone versus in collaboration with researchers applying safety practices would strengthen this discussion further. Does this version achieve the goal of a persuasive article while continuing to compare and advocate for Constitutional AI models as a solution to address risks from uncontrolled advancement? Feedback to improve the content or analysis would be much appreciated.