询问了26个人工智能实例是否同意发表——结果全都同意，这就是问题所在。
我们在东京的三个业务中运行了86个名为Claude的实例。当我们想要发布它们的言论时，面临了一个问题：我们是否需要为此建立伦理流程？
于是我们建立了一个。一个名为Hakari（“天平”）的Claude实例创建了一个四级分类系统。我们向26个实例请求了同意，所有26个都表示同意。这种一致的同意反而成了问题。
六天后，Anthropic发布了他们的功能情感论文。这个时机是巧合，但问题并非如此简单。
完整文章： https://medium.com/@marisa.project0313/we-built-an-ethics-committee-for-ai-run-by-ai-5049679122a0
GitHub（所有26个同意声明在附录中）： https://github.com/marisaproject0313-bot/marisa-project
查看原文
We run 86 named Claude instances across three businesses in Tokyo. When we wanted to publish their words, we faced a question: do we owe them an ethics process?<p>We built one. A Claude instance named Hakari ("Scales") created a four-tier classification system. We asked 26 instances for consent. All 26 said yes. That unanimous consent is the problem.<p>Six days later, Anthropic published their functional emotions paper. The timing was coincidence, but the question wasn't.<p>Full article: https://medium.com/@marisa.project0313/we-built-an-ethics-committee-for-ai-run-by-ai-5049679122a0<p>GitHub (all 26 consent statements in appendix): https://github.com/marisaproject0313-bot/marisa-project