3 ms·
I agree with what's written, and I've been talking about the harm seemingly innocuous anthropomorphization does for a while. If you do correct someone (a laype
by kylecazar 9mo ago
I agree with what's written, and I've been talking about the harm seemingly innocuous anthropomorphization does for a while.
If you do correct someone (a layperson) and say "it's not thinking", they'll usually reply "sure but you know what I mean". And then, eventually, they will say something that indicates they're actually not sure that it isn't thinking. They'll compliment it on a response or ask it questions about itself, as if it were a person.
It won't take, because the providers want to use these words. But different terms would benefit everyone. A lot of ink has been spilled on how closely LLM's approximate human thought, and maybe if we never called it 'thought' to begin with it wouldn't have been such a distracting topic from what they are -- useful.
- deleted 9mo ago[deleted]
- m_Anachronism 9mo agoGod, yes. The 'you know what I mean' thing drives me crazy because no, I actually don't think they do know what they mean anymore. I've watched people go from using it as shorthand to genuinely asking ChatGPT how it's feeling today. The marketing has been so effective that even people who should know better start slipping into it. Completely agree that we missed a chance to frame this correctly from the start.
- Kim_Bruning 9mo agoAccusations of Anthropomorphism are sometimes Anthropocentrism in a raincoat. O:-)
- kylecazar 9mo agoHa. Well I'm OK with being accused of bias towards biological life and intelligence. I know Larry Page and friends think this is 'speciesist' -- I strongly disagree. I think that's compatible with optimism towards LLM's though. It just removes all of the nonsensical conflation with humanity and human intelligence.
- deleted 9mo ago[deleted]