Let's compare these statements. > You think it's irresponsible to anthropomorphize software which iterated through versions of itself until it was best able to

Let's compare these statements. > You think it's irresponsible to anthropomorphize software which iterated through versions of itself until it was best able to model and extrapolate the largest trove of anthropomorphic training data to date? > You think it's irresponsible to anthropomorphize a model developed by a team of researchers using backpropogation to fit the model to a large corpus of text? Do you see how framing it as "software iterating through versions of itself" gives the model agency that makes it seem more human? And how calling it "anthropomorphic data" presupposes that this is data that, when trained on, results in something anthropomorphic? This isn't something I'm reading in I'm afraid, these decisions about how to frame the problem influence the conclusions we come to. It's implicitly taking some very strong priors before the process has begun. I don't have any anxiety about this, I am just telling you from one human being to another, these cognitive biases exist and will foil your efforts to understand this phenomenon if not accounted for. I'm not suggesting anything apocalyptic or hysterical here, I'm just saying you're more likely to end up at the wrong conclusion than the right one if you anthropomorphize AI models.