5 ms·
Anthropomorphizing is a problem when you're talking about treating something that's not living as if it were. Using humanizing language invites discussions of t
by tavavex 2mo ago
Anthropomorphizing is a problem when you're talking about treating something that's not living as if it were. Using humanizing language invites discussions of things like the rights and feelings of an algorithm. A judge that is misled by the application of human-centric language to an algorithm can lead to some terrible outcomes. Not everyone is an LLM expert and the language people use leads to them treating LLMs like actual, real humans. That is terrifying.
- salawat 2mo agoWhat is terrifying is the propensity of people hoping for a mechanical slave to do everything possible to avoid touching on the possibility for being-ness of the technology they are desperately hoping will work as a basis for that implementation.
- hypfer 2mo agoCyberpsychosis. A next token predictor is not a being. Stop posting these things. Stop thinking these things.
- Eisenstein 2mo agoWhy can't it be a being? Why is thinking about such a possibilty bad?
- hypfer 2mo agoSorry, but if you're genuinely asking this not for trolling reasons then you should _really_ _really_ see a medical professional (not an insult). Online comment sections are not the correct place to unpack any of this. Which is indeed terminating this comment chain, but for good (and benevolent) reason. Doing anything else other than referring to a trained professional in a controlled context would potentially just feed delusions, which is highly unethical. Might not even be yours but those of another reader.
- Dilettante_ 2mo agoNice Unthinkable Topic you have there.
- hypfer 2mo agoAs I said, context. In the right space with real people, worthy of a debate. On HN? No. Not like this. Not here. Not without filtering the participants for real human beings.
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- DonHopkins 2mo ago[flagged]
- elar_verole 2mo agoI'd argue that your colossal overreaction to a small invitation to discuss a somewhat interesting hypothetical is what warrants medical attention
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- hypfer 2mo agoI've been going through comment revisions here, and none of them really cut it, but all of them wasted time. But regardless, you're using this as an insult. I did not. There is no debate to be had here. Just a bad faith shouting match
- DonHopkins 2mo ago[dead]
- DonHopkins 2mo ago[dead]
- tavavex 2mo agoSlavery only exists for living beings because humans have limited lifetimes, experience pain and can have their own desires and needs that can be forcibly taken away from them. Algorithms have none of these things and they don't need them (adding them would be the real cruel thing to do). There is no slavery for something that can't experience coercion.
- altmanaltman 2mo ago> Anthropomorphizing is a problem when you're talking about treating something that's not living as if it were. I mean, that is the entire definition of the word. And you also anthropomorphize living beings like many people genuinely attach human qualities to their pets etc. Yes, the risks are very high when it comes to chatbots in particular, especially to people who are not technically inclined. But you'll be surprised at how crucial the ability of anthropomorphizing is. This is a very good paper that summarizes it and is definitely worth reading if you're interested in these things: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/5936908_On_Seeing_Human_A_Three-Factor_Theory_of_Anthropomorphism/link/53ee72ee0cf26b9b7dca8d83/download?_tp=eyJjb250ZXh0Ijp7ImZpcnN0UGFnZSI6InB1YmxpY2F0aW9uIiwicGFnZSI6InB1YmxpY2F0aW9uIn19 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/5936908_On_Seeing_H...
- tavavex 2mo ago> I mean, that is the entire definition of the word. Not quite - my wording there was very deliberate. By saying that it's a problem when you're treating something that's not living (not non-human!) as if it were, that excludes pets and all animals from the equation. I understand how common it is for humans to assign human qualities to other things and beings, but there is also an unspoken variable of intensity. Representing abstract concepts as humans, interpreting living things in a human-like way or traditionally referring to ships as living beings has a different degree of belief and intensity compared to implying a genuine belief that algorithms are beings that can be enslaved, like what the sibling comment to this one does.
- altmanaltman 2mo agoNo its not unspoken. Read the paper linked. It explains what you think you are explaining but with scientific rigor. And you are wrong in your defintion of the world. Attaching human qualities to any non human entity (living or otherwise) is the accepted defintion of what anthropomorphizing is. It does not only apply to non-living entities.
- tavavex 2mo ago