3 ms·
Which is why I keep saying that anthropomorphizing LLMs gives you good high-order intuitions about them, and should not be discouraged. Consider: GP would've b
by TeMPOraL 10mo ago
Which is why I keep saying that anthropomorphizing LLMs gives you good high-order intuitions about them, and should not be discouraged.
Consider: GP would've been much more correct if they said "It's just a person on a chip." Still wrong, but much less, in qualitative fashion, than they are now.
- NoGravitas 10mo agoJust a weird little guy.
- dematz 10mo agoA hungry ghost trapped in a jar (https://bsky.app/profile/hikikomorphism.bsky.social/post/3lwamjk3pjk2x https://bsky.app/profile/hikikomorphism.bsky.social/post/3lw...)
- TeMPOraL 10mo agoSimilar analogy, yes. FWIW, I prefer my "little people on a chip" because this is a deliberate riff on SoC, aka. System on a Chip, aka. an actual component you put when designing computer systems. The implication being, when you design information processing systems, the box with "LLM" on it should go where you'd consider putting a box with "Person" on it, not where you'd put "Database" or any other software/hardware box.
- cess11 10mo agoNo, it does not, it just adds to the risk that you'd be fooled by them or the corporations that produce them and surveil you through their SaaS-models. It's a person in the same sense as a Markov chain is one, or the bot in the reception on Starship Titanic, i.e. not at all.