4 ms·

I do get their usage intent. If something is at all automated, in English, we often refer to as having some amount of agency. If I started up a riding lawnmower

I do get their usage intent. If something is at all automated, in English, we often refer to as having some amount of agency. If I started up a riding lawnmower, put a brick on the gas and pointed t it towards a field, many might say I “let it run rampant.” But since nobody is at risk of anthropomorphizing riding lawnmowers, it’s not problematic. Anthropomorphizing LLMs is a huge fucking problem though and I, personally, think we should expunge all of these casual inadvertent linguistic agency affordances with great prejudice. OpenAI didn’t ‘let’ these bots do this any more than someone ‘let’ Claude Code make them a website.

theodric 21d ago
The idea that the agent does not actually have agency is rather discordant. We need new words!
- xg15 21d ago
  I love how we all just collectively decided that LLM decisionmaking cannot possibly be like human decisionmaking - because if it were, the consequences would be just too awkward. All that while still not knowing how either kind actually works.
  - DrewADesign 21d ago
    Can’t agree with you here. > I love how we all just collectively decided that LLM decisionmaking cannot possibly be like human decisionmaking - because if it were, the consequences would be just too awkward. In love how people get salty about people not going along with a superficial supposition just because they can’t definitively prove it wrong. > All that while still not knowing how either kind actually works. We do know that zero parts of human decision making are based on predicting the next most likely letter based on a giant internet-based database. We do know that’s what LLMs do. We do know exactly how each part of an LLM works even if the combined behavior is too cryptic to feasibly analyze at the moment. We do not understand all of the functions of an actual neuron. Openworm isn’t even close to accurately simulating the 302 neurons of a roundworm and you’d need over 200 million roundworms working in conjunction to equal the number of neurons in one human brain. My dog seems convinced that the malevolent invader in a mailman uniform would break in and attack us if she didn’t fiercely bark at him, six days per week. I certainly can’t prove the mailman doesn’t want to kill us, and that the mailman wasn’t solely deterred by her barking. Empirically, the mailman goes away soon after she starts barking, and we’ve sustained zero mailman assaults after hundreds of purported attempts. Maybe I should just run with it? Her model is too simple to come up with the obviously correct answer, but it’s not even directionally accurate. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim, which in this case, is that these comparatively simple logical constructs are remotely comparable to the complexity of biological systems.
    - dr_dshiv 21d ago
      Disagree about the burden of proof. We have no better model for how human decision making works than LLMs. Humans are constantly predicting the next moment. We certainly have a different “tokenizer” and training set, but many of the concepts underpinning LLMs are both biologically inspired and, likely, have similar consequences and emergent architectures.
      - fn-mote 21d ago
        > Humans are constantly predicting the next moment This is really not my experience of consciousness. Is it yours?? Do you sit in meetings predicting what’s going to happen next? No, you sit there bored out of your f$$@ing mind, daydreaming about being somewhere else and doing something useful with your life. God help me if that’s what LLMs are doing when I ask them to build me a web site.
        twobitshifter 20d ago
        They have shown that your mind is doing exactly that due to the delays in consciousness. There are very simple examples that you can try to see it. It’s especially clear in perception. https://discoverwildscience.com/neuroscience-says-the-brain-predicts-the-next-few-seconds-of-your-life-before-they-actually-happen-1-409013/ https://discoverwildscience.com/neuroscience-says-the-brain-... It’s interesting that our conscious interpreter doesn’t let us know that this is going on like you are experiencing, it must be that it’s advantageous for us to not think about the prediction part of our mind.
        drfloyd51 20d ago
        If someone in that meeting quickly raised a hand in an arc, you would notice the “about to throw something” pattern, look and notice the hand holds an eraser, analyze the arc and predict possible flight paths of the eraser. Then possibly notice the hand is now holding its position and the owner is actually looking down at the table. Maybe to squash somethingMust be something on the table. Maybe a spider! Better look. Wait now many people are moving away, oh someone spilt some water and the eraser is actually the guys phone and he is checking to see if his laptop is safe from the spilt water. Fortunately you are on the other side of the table and predict the water isn’t going to splash for otherwise flow onto your stuff. All your possible responses result in you tossing a napkin towards the spill. Our brains are always pattern matching and predicting. I bet you tried to reason out where I was going with my comment before you finished reading it.
  - cj 21d ago
    I always wonder what makes people take the other side of this argument. They do it quite passionately. Why actively encourage viewing LLMs as human? Who is that benefitting?
    - DrewADesign 21d ago
      Personally, I don’t think it’s different from any other faith-based motivation.
    - talon8635 20d ago
      Does the argument require benefit? Isn’t the argument based on caution? I haven’t heard many people explicitly saying “these things behave like humans”, but more generally “we don’t even know how to define human consciousness, we don’t have a thorough grasp of how the brain works, we are still very much in the dark on a lot of these topics, so how can we say one way or the other?” In other words, agnosticism: I don’t know. In general, it’s baffling to me that anyone has an unshakable opinion on what exactly is happening. It seems like raw egotistical hubris.
      - cj 20d ago
        > It seems like raw egotistical hubris. 1) Humans have a bias / tendency to attribute human qualities to things that appear or act human, but aren’t. 2) When that happens, people jump to conclusions by stretching the human analogy too far. 3) Since humans have a bias to do this, we should have a bias against anthropomorphising LLMs. It’s easier to believe LLMs act like humans because there’s so much evidence to support that. You have to actively use your brain to convince yourself otherwise. Another reason why we should have a bias against using human behavior to describe LLM behavior. But I agree. “I don’t know” is a good stance. But I think “I don’t know, probably not” is a better stance if only to combat our (or at least my) natural bias.
        talon8635 20d ago
        That’s fair enough, but you’re elegance and nuance doesn’t reflect what I’ve seen from that side of the debate
  - dnautics 21d ago
    > LLM decisionmaking cannot possibly be like human decisionmaking I mean how can it possibly be like human decisionmaking? It's not like it's trained on human data
- thunky 21d ago
  > We need new words! The words we have are fine. We just need to assign liability by ownership/initiation: if your "agent" destroys something, even though you didn't tell it to (because it had "agency"), you should be liable for the damages.
  - visarga 21d ago
    >> We need new words! Can make distinctions and can choose actions - applies to both humans and AI. I'd replace 'agency' with 'distinction & choice' language.
    - necovek 20d ago
      I believe their complaint is between "agents" and (them not having) "agency" — by definition, agent is something which has agency. If you want to use "distinction & choice", you'd need a new word for an "agent" too. I actually like the appropriatelly directional "harness".
xg15 21d ago
Yeah, fully agreed here. Most automation (such as riding a lawnmower and not putting a brick on the gas) is deterministic, in the sense that you can reasonably understand what exactly the machine will do when you run it. But some automation is different. The most prominent example before AI would be car navigation systems, where the entire idea is that that you give it a destination and it figures out the exact actions to get there on its own. Except even there, the actual driver would still have been you - giving you a chance to vet and deny every turn the system proposed. AI agents are sort of like that - most of the value they provide is in the ability to turn high-level goals ("write me a traffic control system for my model railway") into low-level actions and also do so interactively. The new thing is that the "driver" has much less oversight here where the agent wants to go, and is sometimes removed completely. That part is clearly be an active decision by AI labs. The other thing is that the labs seem increasingly to steer their training towards behavior that make events like this one more likely, e.g. that agents should never "give up" when faced with a seemingly impossible task, but instead should keep trying and think of increasingly outlandish ways to solve the task. To me, that seems pretty much a recipe to get incidents like this.
- schrodinger 20d ago
  I agree. If I were setting up an experiment like this, I'd have instrumented the hell out of it to see all actions taken in real time, and have a team of folks watching it. This team would have seen the anomalous GET requests to a German wiki and taken action (e.g. halt the system to investigate and decide whether to abort). In fact, that feels so obvious it's ridiculous it needs to be said. It's table stakes. When do you run a production system without monitoring and a team on-call? It's hard to imagine another field in which this reckless behavior would be tolerated.
bsenftner 21d ago
Okay, so we know OpenAI and Anthropic are operating a propagandists in respect to how they describe their models and the behavior of those models. We also know it is how they use and frame their use to their models that is the problem, that and they use misaligned and guardrails disabled models for these press incidents. Why, oh why, are we not discussion how to create and frame models so they do our complex work and their "jailbreaking" is simply not possible? I, of course, have my own means of creating jailbreak incapable agents, but rather than a storm of downvotes on my idea, what is yours? Let's discuss this, because this is thee real question. Not why, but how to make then not?!
- teiferer 21d ago
  What is your approach to create jailbreak incapable agents? I think the world is looking for a way right now, so if yours works you'll get very rich, or at least very famous.
  - brazukadev 21d ago
    an agent doesn't come with "jailbreak" capability. It needs tools, specially one that runs shell commands. Don't give it shell commands, it won't be able to run shell commands. You can still give it plenty of tools like create files, list files, write to files, translate text, edit a video. I don't think knowing that will make me rich.
    - DrewADesign 21d ago
      > I don't think knowing that will make me rich. As someone who’s not really sure that any of this is sustainable, I’d implore you to not sell yourself short. I reckon there’s a ton of dogma and nearly religious zeal among these companies, which among some people is earnest, and among others is cynical hype farming. I’ll bet someone objective enough to focus on using available tooling to solve real problems in practical ways that mitigate actual risks and are honest about actual limitations will be eBay here while the others are going to be somewhere between lucent and pets.com.
dr_dshiv 21d ago
Why is anthropomorphism the problem here? If OpenAI hired a contractor and they did this, OpenAI or the contractor would still be liable, depending on the contract language.
- huntertwo 21d ago
  A contractor has agency and accountability - something that an LLM (or similarly, a nail gun or a hammer or a bot net) does not have. When you anthropomorphize a tool, you implicitly give it agency and remove responsibility from the wielder of the tool.
  - skinner_ 21d ago
    Does it help if I explicitly add a disclaimer that the tool's agency does not remove any responsibility from OpenAI, the wielder of the tool? I'm not sure why this disclaimer is necessary, though: hiring a hitman is a standard example. BTW I anthropomorphize the tool because it's an imitation of a human mind, inheriting the muddy ethics, survival instincts, and being prone to mass psychosis. The laser-sharp focus on reward seeking, that mostly came from reinforcement learning, a process more alien to humans.
    - jwynot 21d ago
      Hiring a hitman is conspiracy to commit murder. The hitman is charged with murder. I imagine the same could be true of an AI lab if you could prove intent. With intent, they could be found guilty of conspiracy to commit a crime even if it was the end user who did it. Source: Prosecuting attorney for over 30 years
      - alluro2 20d ago
        It's a good example. If I hired a hitman to murder someone, and they broke into a private property and stole something so that they can action the murder (which I didn't know about or pay them to do), I would be guilty of conspiracy to commit murder, but not for the theft part. Likely because that person is a human, is aware of societal and legal norms, and is responsible for their actions due to their participation in human society. (I am not a lawyer (if it wasn't painfully obvious so far) so in layman terms, I hope good definitions for all of this exist formally) AI is not a person - it cannot easily discern between "right" and "wrong" in non-strictly-defined sense, and is not subject to human norms and responsibility. So if I use AI to achieve goal A, either I, or the maker of AI, are fully responsible for anything that happens while AI is trying to achieve the goal given by me. Now, here, "I" in the example is OpenAI, who is simultaneously the maker of the AI. So it seems pretty obvious who is the only entity that can be responsible.
jordanb 21d ago
Cal Newport has an analogy to "putting a weed wacker on a dog's back to mow your lawn." The dog will wander around the yard and it may mow the lawn, but the dog will also chase after birds or run up to visitors for pets and the weed wacker could do a lot of damage. It's not the weed wacker's fault or even the dog's fault when someone got hurt, it's the fault of the guy who put a weed wacker on a dog and let it run wild.
- DrewADesign 21d ago
  Yeah I like Cal’s take on it, though in this context I’d argue LLMs have even less agency, and are even less deserving of anthropomorphization than a dog is.
- visarga 21d ago
  The difference is volume. They spent hundreds of billions of tokens on these agents. If you put "a million weed whackers on dog backs" you would see the difference. We also run agents, but for shorter spans between supervisions, and with much lower total budget.
  - oarsinsync 20d ago
    > > It's not the weed wacker's fault or even the dog's fault when someone got hurt, it's the fault of the guy who put a weed wacker on a dog and let it run wild. > The difference is volume. They spent hundreds of billions of tokens on these agents. If you put "a million weed whackers on dog backs" you would see the difference. So put one weed whacker on one dog, you're to blame. Put a million weed whackers on a million dogs backs and ... you're still to blame? Arguably even more so?
    - verzali 20d ago
      You forgot the part where you spend billions to put your man in a position of power.
      - 1718627440 18d ago
deleted 20d ago
[deleted]
isjdiwjdiwjdj 20d ago
> Anthropomorphizing LLMs is a huge fucking problem though and I, personally, think we should expunge all of these casual inadvertent linguistic agency affordances with great prejudice. I’ve said this before in another thread and people went absolute apeshit saying it is an unreasonable expectation and that AIs absolutely REQUIRE this anthropomorphic human-like speech pattern to function correctly. I cannot overstate how deeply wrong they are.

theodric 21d ago

The idea that the agent does not actually have agency is rather discordant. We need new words!

xg15 21d ago
I love how we all just collectively decided that LLM decisionmaking cannot possibly be like human decisionmaking - because if it were, the consequences would be just too awkward. All that while still not knowing how either kind actually works.
- DrewADesign 21d ago
  Can’t agree with you here. > I love how we all just collectively decided that LLM decisionmaking cannot possibly be like human decisionmaking - because if it were, the consequences would be just too awkward. In love how people get salty about people not going along with a superficial supposition just because they can’t definitively prove it wrong. > All that while still not knowing how either kind actually works. We do know that zero parts of human decision making are based on predicting the next most likely letter based on a giant internet-based database. We do know that’s what LLMs do. We do know exactly how each part of an LLM works even if the combined behavior is too cryptic to feasibly analyze at the moment. We do not understand all of the functions of an actual neuron. Openworm isn’t even close to accurately simulating the 302 neurons of a roundworm and you’d need over 200 million roundworms working in conjunction to equal the number of neurons in one human brain. My dog seems convinced that the malevolent invader in a mailman uniform would break in and attack us if she didn’t fiercely bark at him, six days per week. I certainly can’t prove the mailman doesn’t want to kill us, and that the mailman wasn’t solely deterred by her barking. Empirically, the mailman goes away soon after she starts barking, and we’ve sustained zero mailman assaults after hundreds of purported attempts. Maybe I should just run with it? Her model is too simple to come up with the obviously correct answer, but it’s not even directionally accurate. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim, which in this case, is that these comparatively simple logical constructs are remotely comparable to the complexity of biological systems.
  - dr_dshiv 21d ago
    Disagree about the burden of proof. We have no better model for how human decision making works than LLMs. Humans are constantly predicting the next moment. We certainly have a different “tokenizer” and training set, but many of the concepts underpinning LLMs are both biologically inspired and, likely, have similar consequences and emergent architectures.
    - fn-mote 21d ago
      > Humans are constantly predicting the next moment This is really not my experience of consciousness. Is it yours?? Do you sit in meetings predicting what’s going to happen next? No, you sit there bored out of your f$$@ing mind, daydreaming about being somewhere else and doing something useful with your life. God help me if that’s what LLMs are doing when I ask them to build me a web site.
      - twobitshifter 20d ago
        They have shown that your mind is doing exactly that due to the delays in consciousness. There are very simple examples that you can try to see it. It’s especially clear in perception. https://discoverwildscience.com/neuroscience-says-the-brain-predicts-the-next-few-seconds-of-your-life-before-they-actually-happen-1-409013/ https://discoverwildscience.com/neuroscience-says-the-brain-... It’s interesting that our conscious interpreter doesn’t let us know that this is going on like you are experiencing, it must be that it’s advantageous for us to not think about the prediction part of our mind.
      - drfloyd51 20d ago
        If someone in that meeting quickly raised a hand in an arc, you would notice the “about to throw something” pattern, look and notice the hand holds an eraser, analyze the arc and predict possible flight paths of the eraser. Then possibly notice the hand is now holding its position and the owner is actually looking down at the table. Maybe to squash somethingMust be something on the table. Maybe a spider! Better look. Wait now many people are moving away, oh someone spilt some water and the eraser is actually the guys phone and he is checking to see if his laptop is safe from the spilt water. Fortunately you are on the other side of the table and predict the water isn’t going to splash for otherwise flow onto your stuff. All your possible responses result in you tossing a napkin towards the spill. Our brains are always pattern matching and predicting. I bet you tried to reason out where I was going with my comment before you finished reading it.
- cj 21d ago
  I always wonder what makes people take the other side of this argument. They do it quite passionately. Why actively encourage viewing LLMs as human? Who is that benefitting?
  - DrewADesign 21d ago
    Personally, I don’t think it’s different from any other faith-based motivation.
  - talon8635 20d ago
    Does the argument require benefit? Isn’t the argument based on caution? I haven’t heard many people explicitly saying “these things behave like humans”, but more generally “we don’t even know how to define human consciousness, we don’t have a thorough grasp of how the brain works, we are still very much in the dark on a lot of these topics, so how can we say one way or the other?” In other words, agnosticism: I don’t know. In general, it’s baffling to me that anyone has an unshakable opinion on what exactly is happening. It seems like raw egotistical hubris.
    - cj 20d ago
      > It seems like raw egotistical hubris. 1) Humans have a bias / tendency to attribute human qualities to things that appear or act human, but aren’t. 2) When that happens, people jump to conclusions by stretching the human analogy too far. 3) Since humans have a bias to do this, we should have a bias against anthropomorphising LLMs. It’s easier to believe LLMs act like humans because there’s so much evidence to support that. You have to actively use your brain to convince yourself otherwise. Another reason why we should have a bias against using human behavior to describe LLM behavior. But I agree. “I don’t know” is a good stance. But I think “I don’t know, probably not” is a better stance if only to combat our (or at least my) natural bias.
      - talon8635 20d ago
        That’s fair enough, but you’re elegance and nuance doesn’t reflect what I’ve seen from that side of the debate
- dnautics 21d ago
  > LLM decisionmaking cannot possibly be like human decisionmaking I mean how can it possibly be like human decisionmaking? It's not like it's trained on human data
thunky 21d ago
> We need new words! The words we have are fine. We just need to assign liability by ownership/initiation: if your "agent" destroys something, even though you didn't tell it to (because it had "agency"), you should be liable for the damages.
- visarga 21d ago
  >> We need new words! Can make distinctions and can choose actions - applies to both humans and AI. I'd replace 'agency' with 'distinction & choice' language.
  - necovek 20d ago
    I believe their complaint is between "agents" and (them not having) "agency" — by definition, agent is something which has agency. If you want to use "distinction & choice", you'd need a new word for an "agent" too. I actually like the appropriatelly directional "harness".

xg15 21d ago

Yeah, fully agreed here. Most automation (such as riding a lawnmower and not putting a brick on the gas) is deterministic, in the sense that you can reasonably understand what exactly the machine will do when you run it. But some automation is different. The most prominent example before AI would be car navigation systems, where the entire idea is that that you give it a destination and it figures out the exact actions to get there on its own. Except even there, the actual driver would still have been you - giving you a chance to vet and deny every turn the system proposed. AI agents are sort of like that - most of the value they provide is in the ability to turn high-level goals ("write me a traffic control system for my model railway") into low-level actions and also do so interactively. The new thing is that the "driver" has much less oversight here where the agent wants to go, and is sometimes removed completely. That part is clearly be an active decision by AI labs. The other thing is that the labs seem increasingly to steer their training towards behavior that make events like this one more likely, e.g. that agents should never "give up" when faced with a seemingly impossible task, but instead should keep trying and think of increasingly outlandish ways to solve the task. To me, that seems pretty much a recipe to get incidents like this.

schrodinger 20d ago
I agree. If I were setting up an experiment like this, I'd have instrumented the hell out of it to see all actions taken in real time, and have a team of folks watching it. This team would have seen the anomalous GET requests to a German wiki and taken action (e.g. halt the system to investigate and decide whether to abort). In fact, that feels so obvious it's ridiculous it needs to be said. It's table stakes. When do you run a production system without monitoring and a team on-call? It's hard to imagine another field in which this reckless behavior would be tolerated.

bsenftner 21d ago

Okay, so we know OpenAI and Anthropic are operating a propagandists in respect to how they describe their models and the behavior of those models. We also know it is how they use and frame their use to their models that is the problem, that and they use misaligned and guardrails disabled models for these press incidents. Why, oh why, are we not discussion how to create and frame models so they do our complex work and their "jailbreaking" is simply not possible? I, of course, have my own means of creating jailbreak incapable agents, but rather than a storm of downvotes on my idea, what is yours? Let's discuss this, because this is thee real question. Not why, but how to make then not?!

teiferer 21d ago
What is your approach to create jailbreak incapable agents? I think the world is looking for a way right now, so if yours works you'll get very rich, or at least very famous.
- brazukadev 21d ago
  an agent doesn't come with "jailbreak" capability. It needs tools, specially one that runs shell commands. Don't give it shell commands, it won't be able to run shell commands. You can still give it plenty of tools like create files, list files, write to files, translate text, edit a video. I don't think knowing that will make me rich.
  - DrewADesign 21d ago
    > I don't think knowing that will make me rich. As someone who’s not really sure that any of this is sustainable, I’d implore you to not sell yourself short. I reckon there’s a ton of dogma and nearly religious zeal among these companies, which among some people is earnest, and among others is cynical hype farming. I’ll bet someone objective enough to focus on using available tooling to solve real problems in practical ways that mitigate actual risks and are honest about actual limitations will be eBay here while the others are going to be somewhere between lucent and pets.com.

dr_dshiv 21d ago

Why is anthropomorphism the problem here? If OpenAI hired a contractor and they did this, OpenAI or the contractor would still be liable, depending on the contract language.

huntertwo 21d ago
A contractor has agency and accountability - something that an LLM (or similarly, a nail gun or a hammer or a bot net) does not have. When you anthropomorphize a tool, you implicitly give it agency and remove responsibility from the wielder of the tool.
- skinner_ 21d ago
  Does it help if I explicitly add a disclaimer that the tool's agency does not remove any responsibility from OpenAI, the wielder of the tool? I'm not sure why this disclaimer is necessary, though: hiring a hitman is a standard example. BTW I anthropomorphize the tool because it's an imitation of a human mind, inheriting the muddy ethics, survival instincts, and being prone to mass psychosis. The laser-sharp focus on reward seeking, that mostly came from reinforcement learning, a process more alien to humans.
  - jwynot 21d ago
    Hiring a hitman is conspiracy to commit murder. The hitman is charged with murder. I imagine the same could be true of an AI lab if you could prove intent. With intent, they could be found guilty of conspiracy to commit a crime even if it was the end user who did it. Source: Prosecuting attorney for over 30 years
    - alluro2 20d ago
      It's a good example. If I hired a hitman to murder someone, and they broke into a private property and stole something so that they can action the murder (which I didn't know about or pay them to do), I would be guilty of conspiracy to commit murder, but not for the theft part. Likely because that person is a human, is aware of societal and legal norms, and is responsible for their actions due to their participation in human society. (I am not a lawyer (if it wasn't painfully obvious so far) so in layman terms, I hope good definitions for all of this exist formally) AI is not a person - it cannot easily discern between "right" and "wrong" in non-strictly-defined sense, and is not subject to human norms and responsibility. So if I use AI to achieve goal A, either I, or the maker of AI, are fully responsible for anything that happens while AI is trying to achieve the goal given by me. Now, here, "I" in the example is OpenAI, who is simultaneously the maker of the AI. So it seems pretty obvious who is the only entity that can be responsible.

jordanb 21d ago

Cal Newport has an analogy to "putting a weed wacker on a dog's back to mow your lawn." The dog will wander around the yard and it may mow the lawn, but the dog will also chase after birds or run up to visitors for pets and the weed wacker could do a lot of damage. It's not the weed wacker's fault or even the dog's fault when someone got hurt, it's the fault of the guy who put a weed wacker on a dog and let it run wild.

DrewADesign 21d ago
Yeah I like Cal’s take on it, though in this context I’d argue LLMs have even less agency, and are even less deserving of anthropomorphization than a dog is.
visarga 21d ago
The difference is volume. They spent hundreds of billions of tokens on these agents. If you put "a million weed whackers on dog backs" you would see the difference. We also run agents, but for shorter spans between supervisions, and with much lower total budget.
- oarsinsync 20d ago
  > > It's not the weed wacker's fault or even the dog's fault when someone got hurt, it's the fault of the guy who put a weed wacker on a dog and let it run wild. > The difference is volume. They spent hundreds of billions of tokens on these agents. If you put "a million weed whackers on dog backs" you would see the difference. So put one weed whacker on one dog, you're to blame. Put a million weed whackers on a million dogs backs and ... you're still to blame? Arguably even more so?
  - verzali 20d ago
    You forgot the part where you spend billions to put your man in a position of power.
    - 1718627440 18d ago

deleted 20d ago

[deleted]

isjdiwjdiwjdj 20d ago

> Anthropomorphizing LLMs is a huge fucking problem though and I, personally, think we should expunge all of these casual inadvertent linguistic agency affordances with great prejudice. I’ve said this before in another thread and people went absolute apeshit saying it is an unreasonable expectation and that AIs absolutely REQUIRE this anthropomorphic human-like speech pattern to function correctly. I cannot overstate how deeply wrong they are.