3 ms·
That may well be. but please stop with the Anthropomorphism language when referring to a glorified autocomplete machine. machines are not conscious, dont expe
by reify 9mo ago
That may well be.
but please stop with the Anthropomorphism language when referring to a glorified autocomplete machine.
machines are not conscious, dont experience internal conflict nor do they have moral self regulation nor do they engage in dialogue.
It truly is getting rather boring and sounds like made up bollocks
As a retired psychotherapist its like calling myself a human cognitive architect, which sounds like bollocks too.
- sivanhavkin 9mo agothat’s a fair critique, and I agree with you on the fundamentals. I’m not claiming machines are conscious, experience emotions, or possess moral agency in any human sense. The language is intentionally metaphorical — shorthand for architectural patterns inspired by psychology, not literal claims about inner experience. When I refer to “internal conflict” or “moral self-regulation”, I mean competing objectives, constraints, and evaluation processes interacting over time within a system — not phenomenological states. I fully understand how anthropomorphic framing can sound inflated or misleading, and I try to be explicit elsewhere that this is an experimental research prototype, not a claim about machine consciousness. I appreciate the pushback — precision of language matters, especially in this space.