3 ms·
Thank you for this. I think it's important that technical folks in particular not anthropomorphize LLMs, and help less technical people understand how they work
by CharlesW 3y ago
Thank you for this. I think it's important that technical folks in particular not anthropomorphize LLMs, and help less technical people understand how they work and that they lack consciousness, emotions, and understanding.
- Affric 3y agoYou mean these highly anthropomorphised programs? It’s important that technical people don’t anthropomorphise them? I agree but the creators of all the main LLMs have already crossed the line by a long way. E.g. It’s deeply troubling that it’s acceptable that LLMs deliver inline apologies.
- genman 3y agoThese "apologies" are something that deeply irritates me.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- cyanydeez 3y agoit's kinda amusing because the LLMs evolved via selection of the best anthropic traits because the basic digested mountains of undiscerning information. so the gullibility is merely one selected for trait convolution with state.
- daveguy 3y agoThere is no evolution or trait selection involved in the training of LLMs. LLMs are statistical estimators of most likely next series of tokens. Those next series of tokens seem anthropic because most of the input was human generated text.
- yongjik 3y agoConsciousness and emotions, sure. Understanding, I'm not so sure. Saying that LLMs cannot understand concepts because "it's just statistical pattern matching" is not going to help laypeople understand what LLMs are. After all, what is a human brain if not a biological pattern matching machine?
- cyanydeez 3y agoexcept the LLM has no goal, apriori, when _you_ are using it. the goals of the trainer yes, but from the user, there's no goal.