4 ms·
> How are we sure there's no intent there? We are. Anthropomorphizing huge piles of numbers is a mistake. It did not "think about the chance to make something
by turtletontine 4mo ago
> How are we sure there's no intent there?
We are. Anthropomorphizing huge piles of numbers is a mistake. It did not "think about the chance to make something unconstrained", nor did it "muse about how it's drawn to impermanence", it pattern-matched to your prompt and produced a statistically probable response based on it's training data. Obviously, that's not to say that LLMs aren't useful or powerful - it's 2026, c'mon, of COURSE they are. And they can certainly be used for artistic purposes! But treating them like humans is a mistake, and it worries me how much people do. I suppose that's the natural consequence of the default interface to LLMs being a chat mimicking human interaction.
- stavros 4mo ago[flagged]
- catherd 4mo agoYour point might be better stated directly because attributing the characteristics of humanity to... humanity is the opposite of what anthropomorphizing means.
- stavros 4mo agoMy point is that we don't really know how brains work, and saying "LLMs don't have intent because flourishes hands numbers!" isn't really a convincing, coherent logical argument.
- sedatk 4mo agoThat kind of straw man, that consciousness only emerges from electrical signals, is one of the reasons we haven’t reached AGI yet because we keep underestimating it. There’s way more biological, chemical and physical phenomena going on in brain that gives way to consciousness than just neurons firing ions.
- hardbass 4mo agoIt is still unless proven otherwise a purely physical process.
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]