4 ms·
> You are anthropomorphing. Agreed. The situation is so alien that we are prone to attribute human like terms to describe it. > The machine doesn’t “really” u
by robga 3y ago
> You are anthropomorphing.
Agreed. The situation is so alien that we are prone to attribute human like terms to describe it.
> The machine doesn’t “really” understand, it’s just “simulating” it understands.
You are actually displaying a subtle form of anthropomorphism with this statement. You're comparing a human-like quality (“understands”) with the AI.
Your point still stands and your final para is well said - but it shows the difficult nature of discourse around the topic.
- Ensorceled 3y ago> > The machine doesn’t “really” understand, it’s just “simulating” it understands. > You are actually displaying a subtle form of anthropomorphism with this statement. You're comparing a human-like quality (“understands”) with the AI. This doesn't make sense. You're saying that saying a machine DOES NOT have a human like quality is "subtly" anthropomorphizing the machine?
- tough 3y agoI mean I think I kinda get it. Understanding for a machine will never be the same understanding than understanding for a human. Well maybe in a few decades tech is really there and it turned out we were really all in a one of many laplace deterministic simulated worlds and are just LLM's generating next tokens probabilistically too
- robga 3y agoI mean the word “understand” is problematic. Machine and human understanding may be different but the word is applied to both. Does an XOR circuit “understand” what it is doing? I venture the word is inappropriate when applied to non-humans.
- burnished 3y agoI think it makes sense, the framing is an inherently human one even if in negation. In contrast we'd probably never feel the need to clarify that a speaker isn't really singing.