2 ms·

But that's talking about the process, not a lens for looking at it. It's more akin to giving your Roomba a name, and describing it's behavior in terms of "it l

But that's talking about the process, not a lens for looking at it. It's more akin to giving your Roomba a name, and describing it's behavior in terms of "it likes to eat goldfish, but not string because it gets tangled up". That's still anthropomorphizing, but it's not ascribing anything magical or outright wrong to it.

brookst 4y ago
It’s a mistake because our brains have evolved to predict the behavior of animals and people, so being lazy here means you will be surprised, possibly harmed, certainly incorrect in your opinions about the X% of cases where a LLM is fundamentally a different thing than an animal/person. It can be a useful and cute fiction, as your Roomba example, but it leads to bad decision making (“I’ll put more goldfish on the floor to make the Roomba happy”). I guess it all comes down to how important accuracy is to you in a particular context. I anthropomorphize my dishwasher (it HATES wine glasses), but I don’t make professional judgments about dishwashers.
- ThomPete 4y ago
  This is pure speculation. There is not data what so ever to back up the fact that anthropomorphizing something leads to harm. We do that with a lot of things every day and a perfectly capable of drawing the lines when things come down to it. On a more philosophical note. If we some day end up creating AGI, having anthropomorphized it will actually be to our benefit. So you are technically correct but this is not about being technically correct.
  - satisfice 4y ago
    Of course we have data about how reasoning from an incorrect model tends to lead to incorrect results. We have all the data we need about that. Surely that is not in dispute. The only controversy is whether and anthromorph is an isomorph of an accurate model of ChatGPT. I doubt that it is, yet is close enough to fool a lot of people, then surprise them at random.
    - ThomPete 4y ago
      Again. Yes technically incorrect. But you don't have any data that it's actually bad or harmful in some important way.

brookst 4y ago

It’s a mistake because our brains have evolved to predict the behavior of animals and people, so being lazy here means you will be surprised, possibly harmed, certainly incorrect in your opinions about the X% of cases where a LLM is fundamentally a different thing than an animal/person. It can be a useful and cute fiction, as your Roomba example, but it leads to bad decision making (“I’ll put more goldfish on the floor to make the Roomba happy”). I guess it all comes down to how important accuracy is to you in a particular context. I anthropomorphize my dishwasher (it HATES wine glasses), but I don’t make professional judgments about dishwashers.

ThomPete 4y ago
This is pure speculation. There is not data what so ever to back up the fact that anthropomorphizing something leads to harm. We do that with a lot of things every day and a perfectly capable of drawing the lines when things come down to it. On a more philosophical note. If we some day end up creating AGI, having anthropomorphized it will actually be to our benefit. So you are technically correct but this is not about being technically correct.
- satisfice 4y ago
  Of course we have data about how reasoning from an incorrect model tends to lead to incorrect results. We have all the data we need about that. Surely that is not in dispute. The only controversy is whether and anthromorph is an isomorph of an accurate model of ChatGPT. I doubt that it is, yet is close enough to fool a lot of people, then surprise them at random.
  - ThomPete 4y ago
    Again. Yes technically incorrect. But you don't have any data that it's actually bad or harmful in some important way.