4 ms·
Not to single you out but I really don’t like the whole “I asked an LLM” phrasing. All this language anthropomorphizing a tool is just weird to me
by Forgeties79 6mo ago
Not to single you out but I really don’t like the whole “I asked an LLM” phrasing. All this language anthropomorphizing a tool is just weird to me
- thomasmg 6mo agoI understand what you mean; Claude is a tool and does not have feelings, thats clear to me. But how else can I describe what I did? "Wrote to Claude" has the same issue. Posted, typed, inputed?
- Forgeties79 6mo ago“I used Claude to…” “I tried to X using Claude” etc Anyway doesn’t matter. I’m just kind of whining, I probably should’ve never written that comment in the first place. I think it just sticks out to me unlike like a lot of common parlance in other industries, which can definitely steer into anthropomorphizing, because we’re seeing all kinds of issues with people attributing actual intelligence to these things or just experiencing general psychological distress because of them. Using language that ascribes human characteristics to describe using LLMs just feels weird in that context
- wizzwizz4 6mo agoI say "I asked Python to".
- Nevermark 6mo agoGiven these machines are the product of massive intentional and increasingly successful efforts to humanize computers, increased anthropomorphization is appropriate. The behavior/attribute overlap isn't a coincidence or misunderstanding, it is by design. In case of "ask", that describes our behavior not the machines. But if a machine is able to recall and use some fact fluently then it makes sense to say it "knows" it. We routinely use words like "know", without any confusion, when talking about simpler lifeforms that are far less human-like than these models. None of the above means the machine feels pain, is conscious, has a continuous identity, etc. Yet.
- brentcrude 6mo ago[dead]
- deleted 6mo ago[deleted]