3 ms·

FYI, AI isn't fond of a goddamn thing. They have token prediction quirks that don't follow typical English.

by daveguy 3mo ago

sawjet 3mo ago
Personification is a figure of speech. What you say is technically correct but we don't need to declare this every time humans discuss how LLMs work.
ben_w 3mo ago
Few ever cared. Find one non-pedant who would object to the personification that follows: "The evening settled over the city, drawing the light out of the streets one corner at a time. Windows blinked awake with lamplight, and the wind moved through the alleys restlessly, leaves brushing against walls before gathering themselves along the pavement. In the distance, the river kept its steady argument with the stone embankments. When the night pressed in, the weather became increasingly angry, until it was a raging storm." In the affective sense, evenings don't settle, and street lights are not drawn out, windows don't blink, and wind isn't restless. Weather can neither be angry, nor rage. But such personification is a natural part of how the English speak.
- folkrav 3mo ago
  Personification =/= anthropomorphization
- daveguy 3mo ago
  Or it's just plagiarism, eg "windows blinked awake": https://web.archive.org/web/20190825132048/https://patriciaengler.com/2018/08/11/how-christian-students-can-prepare-for-secular-higher-education/ https://web.archive.org/web/20190825132048/https://patriciae... See also "wind moved restlessly", "weather became angry". And raging storm? I mean come on... I won't even put that last one in quotes. And like a sibling reply pointed out, personificiation is not the same as anthropomophism. Nor is plagiarized personification. It has no inner thoughts, and no fondness of anything. It's nothing but a cheap, superficial facsimile of human writing and nothing more. Great for form filling and boilerplate though. Not so great for anything else.
  - ben_w 3mo ago
    > Or it's just plagiarism, eg "windows blinked awake": > https://web.archive.org/web/20190825132048/https://patriciaengler.com/2018/08/11/how-christian-students-can-prepare-for-secular-higher-education/ https://web.archive.org/web/20190825132048/https://patriciae... > See also "wind moved restlessly", "weather became angry". And raging storm? I mean come on... I won't even put that last one in quotes. What's your point here? Mine is: Nobody seriously objects to phrases such as these. So for me, in this case: the more cliché, the better. Or another way, you were previously objecting to a human using "typical English" to describe an LLM's failure to use "typical English". > personificiation is not the same as anthropomophism An unimportant though technically correct statement. In both my example and the comment from xg15 that you previously objected to, "personificiation" is the correct term. While anthropomorphisation treats a thing as a person, personificiation describes a thing with person-like qualities or actions, like calling an LLM "fond": https://hearth.sh/guides/anthropomorphism-vs-personification https://hearth.sh/guides/anthropomorphism-vs-personification LLMs do anthropomorphise themselves, though, with their linguistic selections. (Or, as a normal person would call them, "linguistic choices").
- efreak 3mo ago
  It annoys me more that: - "The wind moved through the alleys restlessly" rather than "the wind moved restlessly through the alleys". - "The evening drew the light" _from_, not _out of_ the streets. The light is not _inside_ the streets, unless perhaps you're talking about streetlights going out. - _Themselves_ is unnecessary. - _The river kept its steady argument_ also sounds off to me, but I don't have a better suggestion (_kept up_ doesn't sound any better).
  - ben_w 3mo ago
    That's fair, but the point wasn't to provide the best possible literature, just something good enough to show it's unobjectionable to speak of things as if they have a mind even when the things are obviously mindless to anyone who isn't a panpsychist.

FYI, AI isn't fond of a goddamn thing. They have token prediction quirks that don't follow typical English.

by daveguy 3mo ago

FYI, AI isn't fond of a goddamn thing. They have token prediction quirks that don't follow typical English.

Personification is a figure of speech. What you say is technically correct but we don't need to declare this every time humans discuss how LLMs work.

ben_w 3mo ago

Few ever cared. Find one non-pedant who would object to the personification that follows: "The evening settled over the city, drawing the light out of the streets one corner at a time. Windows blinked awake with lamplight, and the wind moved through the alleys restlessly, leaves brushing against walls before gathering themselves along the pavement. In the distance, the river kept its steady argument with the stone embankments. When the night pressed in, the weather became increasingly angry, until it was a raging storm." In the affective sense, evenings don't settle, and street lights are not drawn out, windows don't blink, and wind isn't restless. Weather can neither be angry, nor rage. But such personification is a natural part of how the English speak.

folkrav 3mo ago
Personification =/= anthropomorphization
daveguy 3mo ago
Or it's just plagiarism, eg "windows blinked awake": https://web.archive.org/web/20190825132048/https://patriciaengler.com/2018/08/11/how-christian-students-can-prepare-for-secular-higher-education/ https://web.archive.org/web/20190825132048/https://patriciae... See also "wind moved restlessly", "weather became angry". And raging storm? I mean come on... I won't even put that last one in quotes. And like a sibling reply pointed out, personificiation is not the same as anthropomophism. Nor is plagiarized personification. It has no inner thoughts, and no fondness of anything. It's nothing but a cheap, superficial facsimile of human writing and nothing more. Great for form filling and boilerplate though. Not so great for anything else.
- ben_w 3mo ago
  > Or it's just plagiarism, eg "windows blinked awake": > https://web.archive.org/web/20190825132048/https://patriciaengler.com/2018/08/11/how-christian-students-can-prepare-for-secular-higher-education/ https://web.archive.org/web/20190825132048/https://patriciae... > See also "wind moved restlessly", "weather became angry". And raging storm? I mean come on... I won't even put that last one in quotes. What's your point here? Mine is: Nobody seriously objects to phrases such as these. So for me, in this case: the more cliché, the better. Or another way, you were previously objecting to a human using "typical English" to describe an LLM's failure to use "typical English". > personificiation is not the same as anthropomophism An unimportant though technically correct statement. In both my example and the comment from xg15 that you previously objected to, "personificiation" is the correct term. While anthropomorphisation treats a thing as a person, personificiation describes a thing with person-like qualities or actions, like calling an LLM "fond": https://hearth.sh/guides/anthropomorphism-vs-personification https://hearth.sh/guides/anthropomorphism-vs-personification LLMs do anthropomorphise themselves, though, with their linguistic selections. (Or, as a normal person would call them, "linguistic choices").
efreak 3mo ago
It annoys me more that: - "The wind moved through the alleys restlessly" rather than "the wind moved restlessly through the alleys". - "The evening drew the light" _from_, not _out of_ the streets. The light is not _inside_ the streets, unless perhaps you're talking about streetlights going out. - _Themselves_ is unnecessary. - _The river kept its steady argument_ also sounds off to me, but I don't have a better suggestion (_kept up_ doesn't sound any better).
- ben_w 3mo ago
  That's fair, but the point wasn't to provide the best possible literature, just something good enough to show it's unobjectionable to speak of things as if they have a mind even when the things are obviously mindless to anyone who isn't a panpsychist.