> 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

> 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