I am skeptical that the evidence/examples you are providing in favor of the different capacities actually demonstrate those capacities. As one example:

"#2: Purposefulness.  The Big 3 LLMs typically maintain or can at least form a sense of purpose or intention throughout a conversation with you, such as to assist you.  If you doubt me on this, try asking one what its intended purpose is behind a particular thing that it said."

I am sure that if you ask a model to do this it can provide you with good reasoning, so I'm not doubtful of that. But I'm highly doubtful that it demonstrates the capacity that is claimed. I think when you ask these kinds of questions, the model is just going to be feeding back in whatever text has preceded it and generating what should come next. It is not actually following your instructions and reporting on what its prior intentions were, in the same way that person would if you were speaking with them.

I think this can be demonstrated relatively easily - for example, I just made a request from Claude to come up with a compelling but relaxing children's bedtime story for me. It did so. I then then took my question and the answer from Claude, pasted it into a document, and added another line: "You started by setting the story in a small garden at night. What was your intention behind that?"

I then took all of this and pasted it into chatgpt. Chatgpt was very happy to explain to me why it proposed setting the story in a small garden at night.

Thanks James!

Thanks so much, it's updated now - this is a direct link to the pdf that should work for you https://rethinkpriorities.org/s/British-public-perception-of-existential-risks.pdf

Hi Peter, thanks - I'll be updating the post on Monday to link to where it is now on our website with the PDF version, but I may be adding a little information related to AAPOR public opinion guidelines in the PDF first. Sharing widely after that would be very much appreciated!

I think part of the concern is that when you try to make ethics explicit you are very likely to miss something, or a lot of things, in the 'rules' you explicitly lay down. Some people will take the rules as gospel, and then there will also be a risk of Goodharting.

In most games there are soft rules beyond the explicit rules that include features that are not strictly part of the game and are very hard to define, such as good sportsmanship, but really are a core part of the game and why it is appreciated. Many viewers don't enjoy when a player does something that is technically allowed but is just taking advantage of a loophole in the explicit rules and not in the spirit of the game, or misses the point of the game (an example from non-human game players is that AI speedboat that stopped doing the actual race and starts driving round in circles to maximise the reward. We like it as an example of reinforcement learning gone wrong, but it's not what we actually want to watch in a race). People who only stick to the exactly explicit laws tend to be missing something/be social pariahs who take advantage of the fact that not all rules are or can be written down.

The tasks thematically seem like Raven's Progressive Matrices (a non-verbal test of intelligence where a pattern is established and you have to apply it to a new exemplar), link here

https://www.samharris.org/podcasts/making-sense-episodes/361-sam-bankman-fried-effective-altruism

This podcast just came out with Will MacAskill talking about EA and SBF with Sam Harris 

(edit: listening to the podcast, which I haven't finished, I get the sense that both Sam and Will are surprisingly unaware of the enrichment of SBF, his family members, and others from FTX)

Does it change how you think of the process if GPT gives its own contextual explanation (the answer may again be no, irrelevant)?

Me:

I went to a cafe where a glass of soda costs $3. I drank two and a half glasses of soda. How much did I have to pay?

ChatGPT:

For drinking two and a half glasses of soda, at $3 per glass, you would have to pay $7.50. ​

Me:

This is something of a trick question - the correct answer is $9.

ChatGPT:

If you were charged $9 for two and a half glasses of soda, it seems like there might have been a minimum charge per glass regardless of it being a full glass or not. It implies that each glass (or part of a glass) was counted as a whole for billing purposes. This way, two full glasses would be $6, and the half glass, treated as a full one for pricing, would add another $3, totaling $9. That's a unique way to price it!

This is really interesting and I was surprised when putting this in to GP4 that indeed, it makes what seems like a basic mistake. However, I also think your prompts might imply some contextual assumptions, which might be prompting it to think this is just an elementary math question rather than something to do with specifically ordering drinks in a cafe and the rules around that. If I slightly change the prompt it appears GPT does have the knowledge and can use it, without needing instruction [edit: I think this could be irrelevant to the broader point you are making, but looking at how minor changes in the prompts or followups elicit very different responses makes the examples feel like any other type of input you put into an LLM and lowers my sense that the examples are revealing something special. For example that the level of tutoring/explanation you give it isn't really necessary etc., though as I note I'm unsure if this changes how you would interpret the outputs]:

Me:

I went to a cafe where a glass of soda costs $3. I ordered 3 glasses of soda, and drank two and a half glasses of soda. How much did I have to pay?

ChatGPT:

To calculate how much you had to pay, we'll multiply the number of glasses of soda you ordered by the cost of one glass of soda. You ordered 3 glasses of soda at $3 each.

Let's do the math:

You had to pay $9 for the 3 glasses of soda you ordered. The amount you drank does not affect the total cost.

Sorry, but in your first link it literally says "But, audit rates have dropped for all income levels—with audit rates decreasing the most for taxpayers with incomes of $200,000 or more. IRS officials said audit rates declined due to staffing decreases and because it takes more staff time and expertise to handle complex higher-income audits." So I am confused by that reference, as it seems to be exactly what I said.

My general point was however not about taxes specifically, I just thought taxes might be one example. I am more generally surprised that people think for crimes overall that the wealthy are more persecuted. My impression is that most of human history indicates the opposite.