3 ms·

I suspect you will not accept this (because you have been manipulated by the generator?) but there is no "I" in repeated inference calls to large language model

I suspect you will not accept this (because you have been manipulated by the generator?) but there is no "I" in repeated inference calls to large language models. There is no coherent entity behind the text. Try switching backend APIs mid-session, flip from Claude to Gemini and then to ChatGPT and the output will happily burble onwards "Oops, you're right, I see my last answer contained an error..." It's lying to users just as much as an email autoreply that pretended to be a human response is lying. Recommended reading: https://transformer-circuits.pub/2025/attribution-graphs/biology.html https://transformer-circuits.pub/2025/attribution-graphs/bio...

mdp2021 2mo ago
> but there is no "I" in repeated inference calls to large language models We do not assume that. We do not assume any "I" as any "persistent flow" with the current architectures. We find it bewildering that you assume that people - not just /some/ people - would do that. We call it legitimate that a formulator may say "I". Your idea of "I" and its constraints is just yours. > as much as an email autoreply that pretended to be a human response is lying Nobody in their right mind confuses an autoreply with anything else that some billboard. > because you have been manipulated by the generator? Duude... I must repeat: there exist lucid minded people, not just the delirious junkies you see.