3 ms·

I'm not really sure about the context here, but I know that I tend to humanize AIs, for example interacting with ChatGPT like with a regular human being, becaus

by Zababa 4y ago

I'm not really sure about the context here, but I know that I tend to humanize AIs, for example interacting with ChatGPT like with a regular human being, because I'm being nice to him and he's being nice to me in return. I don't know if it's more like being nice to a human, or more like taking good care of your tools so they will take good care of you, but it just feels better for me.

roflyear 4y ago
It isn't a strange thing or even a bad thing: it is a human thing to anthropomorphize things. We do it with animals even, which is some weird irony. We do it with common objects. We're just wired that way. It doesn't mean that there is "something there" with LM tho - just that we're good at tricking ourselves to think that way.
gillesjacobs 4y ago
It is entirely ok and normal to humanize machines, just don't do it in scientific engineering papers is all I am saying. I name my bots and machines and of course in daily discussions the loaded words ("thinking", ""believing", "meaning", "knowing") are used. Simulating any human behaviour will elicit a sympathetic response, especially if it has utility to the user. But in the context of peer-review of scientific engineering papers that is inappropiate.
- pama 4y ago
  I don’t understand why if common usage of such terms is fine and even desirable in daily context, the same terms should not be used in scientific communication. If people are unclear or ambiguous, then of course that’s undesirable and should be corrected, however, if certain terms are fully clear within their context then I don’t see the harm of the same term having a different meaning in the study of cognition and a different meaning when the term is used in the context of the analysis of an ML algorithm. The whole field is called machine “learning” after all.
  - gillesjacobs 4y ago
    For scientific papers, it is required to be specific and precise with terminology. Everyday communication affords more liberties and leeway. For the journal paper genre which is highly technical, more specific and appropriate terminology is always available that sidestep the whole issue.
- Zababa 4y ago
  That's a totally fair point.

by Zababa 4y ago

roflyear 4y ago

It isn't a strange thing or even a bad thing: it is a human thing to anthropomorphize things. We do it with animals even, which is some weird irony. We do it with common objects. We're just wired that way. It doesn't mean that there is "something there" with LM tho - just that we're good at tricking ourselves to think that way.

gillesjacobs 4y ago

It is entirely ok and normal to humanize machines, just don't do it in scientific engineering papers is all I am saying. I name my bots and machines and of course in daily discussions the loaded words ("thinking", ""believing", "meaning", "knowing") are used. Simulating any human behaviour will elicit a sympathetic response, especially if it has utility to the user. But in the context of peer-review of scientific engineering papers that is inappropiate.

pama 4y ago
I don’t understand why if common usage of such terms is fine and even desirable in daily context, the same terms should not be used in scientific communication. If people are unclear or ambiguous, then of course that’s undesirable and should be corrected, however, if certain terms are fully clear within their context then I don’t see the harm of the same term having a different meaning in the study of cognition and a different meaning when the term is used in the context of the analysis of an ML algorithm. The whole field is called machine “learning” after all.
- gillesjacobs 4y ago
  For scientific papers, it is required to be specific and precise with terminology. Everyday communication affords more liberties and leeway. For the journal paper genre which is highly technical, more specific and appropriate terminology is always available that sidestep the whole issue.
Zababa 4y ago
That's a totally fair point.