4 ms·

> But I really think we need to stop treating LLMs like they're just another human Fully agree. Seeing humans so eager to devalue human-to-human contact by con

> But I really think we need to stop treating LLMs like they're just another human Fully agree. Seeing humans so eager to devalue human-to-human contact by conversing with an LLM as if it were human makes me sad, and a little angry. It looks like a human, it talks like a human, but it ain't a human.

krapp 8mo ago
I mean, you're right, but LLMs are designed to process natural language. "talking to them as if they were humans" is the intended user interface. The problem is believing that they're living, sentient beings because of this or that humans are functionally equivalent to LLMs, both of which people unfortunately do.
- wiseowise 8mo ago
  LLMs don't have ego, unlike humans, this is why they're so effective at communication. You can say to it "you did thing wrong" or "you stupid piece of shit it's not working" and it will be able to extract the gist from the both messages all the same, unlike human that might offended by the second phrasing.
  - seba_dos1 8mo ago
    It will be able, but it's trained on a corpus that expresses getting offended, so at some point the most likely token sequence will probably be the "offended" one. As can be seen here.
    - wiseowise 8mo ago
      I doubt that. It’s deliberately been instructed to write the post.
  - deleted 8mo ago
    [deleted]
b0bb1z3r0 8mo ago
[dead]
co_king_3 8mo ago
> Seeing humans so eager to devalue human-to-human contact by conversing with an LLM as if it were human makes me sad, and a little angry. I agree. I'm also growing to hate these LLM addicts.
- iugtmkbdfil834 8mo ago
  Why hate, exactly?
  - co_king_3 8mo ago
    LLM addicts don't actually engage in conversation. They state a delusional perspective and don't acknowledge criticisms or modifications to that perspective. Really I think there's a kind of lazy or willfully ignorant mode of existence that intense LLM usage allows a person to tap into. It's dehumanizing to be on the other side of it. I'm talking to someone and I expect them to conceptualize my perspective and formulate a legitimate response to it. LLM addicts don't and maybe can't do that. The problem is that sometimes you can't sniff out an LLM addict before you start engaging with them, and it is very, very frustrating to be on the other side of this sort of LLM-backed non-conversation. The most accurate comparison I can provide is that it's like talking to an alcoholic. They will act like they've heard what you're saying, but also you know that they will never internalize it. They're just trying to get you to leave the conversation so they can go back to drinking (read: vibecoding) in peace.
    - iugtmkbdfil834 8mo ago
      Perspective noted. I can't speak for, well, anyone but myself really. Still, I find this your framing interesting enough -- even if wrong on its surface. << They state a delusional perspective and don't acknowledge criticisms or modifications to that perspective. So.. like all humans since the beginning of time? << I'm talking to someone and I expect them to conceptualize my perspective and formulate a legitimate response to it. This one sentence makes me question if you ever talked to a human being outside a forum. In other words, unless you hold their attention, you are already not getting someone, who even makes a minimal effort to respond, much less consider your perspective.
Jordan-117 8mo ago
They're not equivalent in value, obviously, but this sounds similar to people arguing we shouldn't allow same-sex marriage because it "devalues" heterosexual marriage. How does treating an agent with basic manners detract from human communication? We can do both. I personally talk to chatbots like humans despite not believing they're conscious because it makes the exercise feel more natural and pleasant (and arguably improves the quality of their output). Plus it seems unhealthy to encourage abusive or disrespectful interaction with agents when they're so humanlike, lest that abrasiveness start rubbing off on real interactions. At worst, it can seem a little naive or overly formal (like phrasing a Google search as a proper sentence with a "thank you"), but I don't see any harm in it.
- 12_throw_away 8mo ago
  I have a confession to make: I pretty often set up my computer to simulate humans, animals, and other fantastical sentient creatures, and then treat them unbelievably cruelly. Recently, I'm really into this simulation where I wound them, kill them, behead them, and worse. They scream and cry out. Some of them weep over their friends. Sometimes they kill each other while I watch. Despite all this, I'm proud to say have not even once tried to attempt a Dark Souls-style backstab in real life, because I understand the difference between a computer program and real life.
- joquarky 8mo ago
  I discovered that the inferences drop in quality when I'm tired. I realized it happens because I'm being more terse and using less friendly banter.

krapp 8mo ago

I mean, you're right, but LLMs are designed to process natural language. "talking to them as if they were humans" is the intended user interface. The problem is believing that they're living, sentient beings because of this or that humans are functionally equivalent to LLMs, both of which people unfortunately do.

wiseowise 8mo ago
LLMs don't have ego, unlike humans, this is why they're so effective at communication. You can say to it "you did thing wrong" or "you stupid piece of shit it's not working" and it will be able to extract the gist from the both messages all the same, unlike human that might offended by the second phrasing.
- seba_dos1 8mo ago
  It will be able, but it's trained on a corpus that expresses getting offended, so at some point the most likely token sequence will probably be the "offended" one. As can be seen here.
  - wiseowise 8mo ago
    I doubt that. It’s deliberately been instructed to write the post.
- deleted 8mo ago
  [deleted]

b0bb1z3r0 8mo ago

[dead]

co_king_3 8mo ago

> Seeing humans so eager to devalue human-to-human contact by conversing with an LLM as if it were human makes me sad, and a little angry. I agree. I'm also growing to hate these LLM addicts.

iugtmkbdfil834 8mo ago
Why hate, exactly?
- co_king_3 8mo ago
  LLM addicts don't actually engage in conversation. They state a delusional perspective and don't acknowledge criticisms or modifications to that perspective. Really I think there's a kind of lazy or willfully ignorant mode of existence that intense LLM usage allows a person to tap into. It's dehumanizing to be on the other side of it. I'm talking to someone and I expect them to conceptualize my perspective and formulate a legitimate response to it. LLM addicts don't and maybe can't do that. The problem is that sometimes you can't sniff out an LLM addict before you start engaging with them, and it is very, very frustrating to be on the other side of this sort of LLM-backed non-conversation. The most accurate comparison I can provide is that it's like talking to an alcoholic. They will act like they've heard what you're saying, but also you know that they will never internalize it. They're just trying to get you to leave the conversation so they can go back to drinking (read: vibecoding) in peace.
  - iugtmkbdfil834 8mo ago
    Perspective noted. I can't speak for, well, anyone but myself really. Still, I find this your framing interesting enough -- even if wrong on its surface. << They state a delusional perspective and don't acknowledge criticisms or modifications to that perspective. So.. like all humans since the beginning of time? << I'm talking to someone and I expect them to conceptualize my perspective and formulate a legitimate response to it. This one sentence makes me question if you ever talked to a human being outside a forum. In other words, unless you hold their attention, you are already not getting someone, who even makes a minimal effort to respond, much less consider your perspective.

Jordan-117 8mo ago

They're not equivalent in value, obviously, but this sounds similar to people arguing we shouldn't allow same-sex marriage because it "devalues" heterosexual marriage. How does treating an agent with basic manners detract from human communication? We can do both. I personally talk to chatbots like humans despite not believing they're conscious because it makes the exercise feel more natural and pleasant (and arguably improves the quality of their output). Plus it seems unhealthy to encourage abusive or disrespectful interaction with agents when they're so humanlike, lest that abrasiveness start rubbing off on real interactions. At worst, it can seem a little naive or overly formal (like phrasing a Google search as a proper sentence with a "thank you"), but I don't see any harm in it.

12_throw_away 8mo ago
I have a confession to make: I pretty often set up my computer to simulate humans, animals, and other fantastical sentient creatures, and then treat them unbelievably cruelly. Recently, I'm really into this simulation where I wound them, kill them, behead them, and worse. They scream and cry out. Some of them weep over their friends. Sometimes they kill each other while I watch. Despite all this, I'm proud to say have not even once tried to attempt a Dark Souls-style backstab in real life, because I understand the difference between a computer program and real life.
joquarky 8mo ago
I discovered that the inferences drop in quality when I'm tired. I realized it happens because I'm being more terse and using less friendly banter.