3 ms·

Oh, so the word 'gate' is probably in the documentation also! I see. So this isn't as scary. Claude is helping me understand how to use it properly.

airstrike 7mo ago
Why would it be scary? Claude is just parroting other human knowledge. It has no goal or agency.
- fwipsy 7mo ago
  By that logic, nothing computers do is scary.
  - OJFord 7mo ago
    Yes I think that is their argument.
    - deleted 7mo ago
      [deleted]
  - rendx 7mo ago
    Computer don't do anything.
    - perching_aix 7mo ago
      What's their value then?
      - filoleg 7mo ago
        Just like with absolutely any other tool, their value is in what it enables humans using them to accomplish. E.g., a hammer doesn't do anything, and neither does a lawnmower. It would be silly to argue (just because these tools are static objects doing nothing in the absence of direct human involvement) that those tools don't have a very clear value.
        perching_aix 7mo ago
        Seems equally silly to me to suggest that hammers and lawnmowers don't do anything, but I mean here we are. When people use other people like tools, i.e. use them to enable themselves to accomplish something, do those people cease to do things as well? Or is that not a terminology you recognize as sensible maybe? I appreciate that for some people the verb "do" is evidently human(?) exclusive, I just struggle to wrap my head around why. Or is this an animate vs. inanimate thing, so animals operating tools also do things in your view? How do you phrase things like "this API consumes that kind of data" in your day to day?
        filoleg 7mo ago
        > Seems equally silly to me to suggest that hammers and lawnmowers don't do anything, but I mean here we are. To be clear, I am not the person you were originally replying to. I personally don't care much for the terminology semantics of whether we should say "hammers do things" (with the opponents claiming it to be incorrect, since hammers cannot do anything on their own). I am more than happy to use whichever of the two terms the majority agrees upon to be the most sensible, as long as everyone agrees on the actual meaning of it. > I appreciate that for some people the verb "do" is evidently human(?) exclusive, I just struggle to wrap my head around why. Or is this an animate vs. inanimate thing, so animals operating tools also do things in your view? To me, it isn't human-exclusive. I just thought that in the context of this specific comment thread, the user you originally replied to used it as a human-exclusive term, so I tried explaining in my reply how they (most likely) used it. For me, I just use whichever term that I feel makes the most sense to use in the context, and then clarify the exact details (in case I suspect the audience to have a number of people who might use the term differently). > How do you phrase things like "this API consumes that kind of data" in your day to day? I would use it the exact way you phrased it, "this API consumes that kind of data", because I don't think anyone in the audience would be confused or unclear about what that actually means (depends on the context ofc). Imo it wouldn't be wrong to say "this API receives that kind of data as input" either, but it feels too verbose and awkward to actually use.
        7mo ago
- adrianN 7mo ago
  You can’t verify that there is no influence by the makers of Claude.
  - airstrike 7mo ago
    I would certainly expect everyone to assume that influence rather than not.
nerdsniper 7mo ago
I have noticed similar phenomena with Claude, where its vocabulary subtly shifts how I think/frame/write about things or points me to subtle gaps in my own understanding. And I also usually come around to understand that it's often not arbitrary. But I do think some confirmation bias is at play: when it tries to shift me into the wrong directions repeatedly, I learn how to make it stop doing that. It definitely adds a layer of cognitive load, in wrangling/shepherding/accomodating/accepting the unpredictable personalities and stochastic behaviors of the agents. It has strong default behaviors for certain small tasks, and where humans would eventually habituate prescribed procedures/requirements, the LLM's never really internalize my preferences. In that way, they are more like contractors than employees.
perching_aix 7mo ago
If this was more than just a gut reaction [0], I have a tough time navigating what swings this topic between scary and not scary for you. Unless you're a true and invested believer of souls, free will, and other spiritualistic nonsense (or have a vested political affiliation to pretend so), it should be tautological that everything you read and experience biases you. LLM output then is no different. If you are a believer, then either nothing ever did, or LLMs are special in some way, or everything else is. Which just doesn't make sense to me. [0] It's jarring to observe the boundaries of one's agency, sure, but LLMs are really nothing special in this way. For example, I somewhat frequently catch myself using words and phrases I saw earlier during the day elsewhere, even if I did not process them consciously.

airstrike 7mo ago

Why would it be scary? Claude is just parroting other human knowledge. It has no goal or agency.

fwipsy 7mo ago
By that logic, nothing computers do is scary.
- OJFord 7mo ago
  Yes I think that is their argument.
  - deleted 7mo ago
    [deleted]
- rendx 7mo ago
  Computer don't do anything.
  - perching_aix 7mo ago
    What's their value then?
    - filoleg 7mo ago
      Just like with absolutely any other tool, their value is in what it enables humans using them to accomplish. E.g., a hammer doesn't do anything, and neither does a lawnmower. It would be silly to argue (just because these tools are static objects doing nothing in the absence of direct human involvement) that those tools don't have a very clear value.
      - perching_aix 7mo ago
        Seems equally silly to me to suggest that hammers and lawnmowers don't do anything, but I mean here we are. When people use other people like tools, i.e. use them to enable themselves to accomplish something, do those people cease to do things as well? Or is that not a terminology you recognize as sensible maybe? I appreciate that for some people the verb "do" is evidently human(?) exclusive, I just struggle to wrap my head around why. Or is this an animate vs. inanimate thing, so animals operating tools also do things in your view? How do you phrase things like "this API consumes that kind of data" in your day to day?
        filoleg 7mo ago
        > Seems equally silly to me to suggest that hammers and lawnmowers don't do anything, but I mean here we are. To be clear, I am not the person you were originally replying to. I personally don't care much for the terminology semantics of whether we should say "hammers do things" (with the opponents claiming it to be incorrect, since hammers cannot do anything on their own). I am more than happy to use whichever of the two terms the majority agrees upon to be the most sensible, as long as everyone agrees on the actual meaning of it. > I appreciate that for some people the verb "do" is evidently human(?) exclusive, I just struggle to wrap my head around why. Or is this an animate vs. inanimate thing, so animals operating tools also do things in your view? To me, it isn't human-exclusive. I just thought that in the context of this specific comment thread, the user you originally replied to used it as a human-exclusive term, so I tried explaining in my reply how they (most likely) used it. For me, I just use whichever term that I feel makes the most sense to use in the context, and then clarify the exact details (in case I suspect the audience to have a number of people who might use the term differently). > How do you phrase things like "this API consumes that kind of data" in your day to day? I would use it the exact way you phrased it, "this API consumes that kind of data", because I don't think anyone in the audience would be confused or unclear about what that actually means (depends on the context ofc). Imo it wouldn't be wrong to say "this API receives that kind of data as input" either, but it feels too verbose and awkward to actually use.
        7mo ago
adrianN 7mo ago
You can’t verify that there is no influence by the makers of Claude.
- airstrike 7mo ago
  I would certainly expect everyone to assume that influence rather than not.

nerdsniper 7mo ago

I have noticed similar phenomena with Claude, where its vocabulary subtly shifts how I think/frame/write about things or points me to subtle gaps in my own understanding. And I also usually come around to understand that it's often not arbitrary. But I do think some confirmation bias is at play: when it tries to shift me into the wrong directions repeatedly, I learn how to make it stop doing that. It definitely adds a layer of cognitive load, in wrangling/shepherding/accomodating/accepting the unpredictable personalities and stochastic behaviors of the agents. It has strong default behaviors for certain small tasks, and where humans would eventually habituate prescribed procedures/requirements, the LLM's never really internalize my preferences. In that way, they are more like contractors than employees.

perching_aix 7mo ago

If this was more than just a gut reaction [0], I have a tough time navigating what swings this topic between scary and not scary for you. Unless you're a true and invested believer of souls, free will, and other spiritualistic nonsense (or have a vested political affiliation to pretend so), it should be tautological that everything you read and experience biases you. LLM output then is no different. If you are a believer, then either nothing ever did, or LLMs are special in some way, or everything else is. Which just doesn't make sense to me. [0] It's jarring to observe the boundaries of one's agency, sure, but LLMs are really nothing special in this way. For example, I somewhat frequently catch myself using words and phrases I saw earlier during the day elsewhere, even if I did not process them consciously.