4 ms·
ITT it's striking how the language being used (even in shorthand, or casual use) triggers debate. It's pretty clear that when discussing the behavior of AI too
by aaroninsf 4y ago
ITT it's striking how the language being used (even in shorthand, or casual use) triggers debate.
It's pretty clear that when discussing the behavior of AI tools, we should all endavor to use precise language, clarify or at least use quotation makes to nod to ambiguity, and eventually get some kind of consensus understanding of what is and is not being implied or asserted or argued through use of language necessarily borrowed from our experience, with humans (and our own institutions, and animals, and the other familiar categories of agent in our world).
The most useful TLDR is use quotation marks to side-step a detour during discussion into a reexamination of what sort of agency and model of mind we should have assume for LML or other tools.
Example: ChatGPT "lies" by design
This acknowledges a whole raft of contentious issues without getting stuck on them.
- iconosynclast 4y agoI find all the arguments about why it's bad to anthropomorphize here a bit tiresome. It seems clear as day anthropomorphization is more appropriate to this subject matter than to almost any other subject matter where we commonly do it without giving it a second thought. It's a chatbot! the whole point is anthropomorphism! if it lies, it lies. We know it when we see it and pretending we don't won't get us any closer to nailing down a better definition than that. I think it's better to just acknowledge the fluidity of language and our difficulty with nailing down hard definitions in general than to pretend this particular subject matter is somehow unique in this sense