3 ms·

We really need an idiom for the behavior of being technically correct but absolutely destroying the prospect of interesting conversation. With this framing we m

We really need an idiom for the behavior of being technically correct but absolutely destroying the prospect of interesting conversation. With this framing we might as well go back to arguing over which rock our local river god has blessed with greater utility. I'm not actually entirely convinced humans are capable of understanding much when discussion desired is this low quality. Critically, creation does not require intent nor understanding. Neither does recombination; neither reformulation. The only thing intent is necessary for is to create something meaningful to humans—handily taken care of via prompt and training material, just like with humans. (If you can't tell, I thought we had bypassed the neuroticism over whether or not data counts as "understanding", whatever that means to people, on week 2 of LLMs)

AdieuToLogic 2y ago
> We really need an idiom for the behavior of being technically correct but absolutely destroying the prospect of interesting conversation. While it is not an idiom, the applicable term is likely pedantry[0]. > I'm not actually entirely convinced humans are capable of understanding much when discussion desired is this low quality. Ignoring the judgemental qualifier, consider your original post to which I replied: What we call "hallucinations" is far more similar to what we would call "inventiveness", "creativity", or "imagination" in humans ... The term for this behavior is anthropomorphism[1] due to ascribing human behaviors/motivations to algorithmic constructs. > Critically, creation does not require intent nor understanding. Neither does recombination; neither reformulation. The same can be said for a random number generator and a permutation algorithm. > (If you can't tell, I thought we had bypassed the neuroticism over whether or not data counts as "understanding", whatever that means to people, on week 2 of LLMs) If you can't tell, I differentiate between humans and algorithms, no matter the cleverness observed of the latter, as only the former can possess "understanding." 0 - https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pedant https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pedant 1 - https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anthropomorphism https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anthropomorphism

AdieuToLogic 2y ago

> We really need an idiom for the behavior of being technically correct but absolutely destroying the prospect of interesting conversation. While it is not an idiom, the applicable term is likely pedantry[0]. > I'm not actually entirely convinced humans are capable of understanding much when discussion desired is this low quality. Ignoring the judgemental qualifier, consider your original post to which I replied: What we call "hallucinations" is far more similar to what we would call "inventiveness", "creativity", or "imagination" in humans ... The term for this behavior is anthropomorphism[1] due to ascribing human behaviors/motivations to algorithmic constructs. > Critically, creation does not require intent nor understanding. Neither does recombination; neither reformulation. The same can be said for a random number generator and a permutation algorithm. > (If you can't tell, I thought we had bypassed the neuroticism over whether or not data counts as "understanding", whatever that means to people, on week 2 of LLMs) If you can't tell, I differentiate between humans and algorithms, no matter the cleverness observed of the latter, as only the former can possess "understanding." 0 - https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pedant https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pedant 1 - https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anthropomorphism https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anthropomorphism