3 ms·

Love the totally conflicting statements in that post. - When we think of AI agents, we shouldn’t anthropomorphize - ...my visceral dislike of interacting with

Love the totally conflicting statements in that post. - When we think of AI agents, we shouldn’t anthropomorphize - ...my visceral dislike of interacting with an LLM that’s not just making a pretense of being human, but also posing as the kind of human I walk away from. So he's anthropomorphised the LLM as being like a human himself (rather than forcing it to act as a machine via its prompt for example). Maybe he should have had an AI check his post :D

sanderjd 15d ago
Sometimes I wonder if this is a personality thing. It has never occurred to me to anthropomorphize these things. But it seems like a huge number of people struggle with this.
- Retr0id 15d ago
  I suspect harness and usage modality is a big factor. Personally I disable all "memory" features wherever possible. I don't want the LLM to "get to know me", or any illusion thereof, which I assume helps with not anthropomorphizing it.
  - sanderjd 15d ago
    I use memory all the time so that I can ask it about things. That doesn't mean it "knows me" any more than my notes documents do, it's just more convenient to search.
    - zephen 15d ago
      > That doesn't mean it "knows me" any more than my notes documents do But are you happy handing over your notes documents to mass aggregators of information?
      - sanderjd 15d ago
        In general, yes.
        zephen 15d ago
        I'd be happy doing it 99.99% of the time myself, but I don't want to form the habit to think it's a good thing to do.
        sanderjd 14d ago
        Yeah I don't think we disagree that much about this. But I'm not really worried about this particular habit forming risk. I can see where you're coming from though.
  - zephen 15d ago
    I do the same. But frankly, I mostly use (greenfield, non-remembering) LLMs directly to counteract the enshittification of search brought on by attempts to use AI to remember things about me (and especially to sell me things). This works well for me because (a) I'm usually using my desktop, and (b) I'm a touch-typist. I want to say that my search results have gotten back to where they were a decade or more ago by doing this, even though I often have to give a couple of prompts in order to get the LLM to provide me a useful link.
    - sanderjd 15d ago
      I guess I'm also pretty skeptical of the "automatically remember things about me" functionality. But I really like being able to say "hey make sure to remember this fact" and being able to ask about those things later.
      - rsfern 15d ago
        For me the convenience of “hey remember this fact” is outweighed by a desire not to get stuck in a search or context bubble. It might be nice to have better UI to control which bits of history get added to the context of a chat, but then just use a coding harness instead of web UI
        sanderjd 15d ago
        Maybe. But I don't just use it for coding. For instance one thing I use it for is helping me track and evolve my workouts over time. It helps that it can remember the weight and number of reps I did the previous time. I could make an app for this, but it works well to do it purely within chat, with memory, and that's convenient. This is just an example, I use it this way for a number of things. I'm not going to use a coding harness for this kind of trivial use case!
- zephen 15d ago
  My daughter is a pediatrician and just gave a talk on mental health problems (including suicides) brought on by the sort of personality that succumbs to this. I find it interesting. For most of my life, I have gotten on well with (well-designed) machines. I'm the sort of guy who, when they bring me in to show me what's broken, it works in front of me. Maybe I get on with well-designed machines better than people. Because people are never well-designed. So, when LLMs are working properly, I get along well with them, but when they're not, I'm unhappy. But I never confuse any of my machines for people.
  - sanderjd 15d ago
    Yeah to me it's just "oh what a nice interface for compressing information and accessing it upon request!", not at all "I'm talking to a person". But I dunno, maybe we're the weird ones.
    - zephen 15d ago
      I know I'm weird. I remember watching my brother get frustrated with a dysfunctional remote control. He threw it forcefully enough at a stone fireplace to shatter it. From my perspective, that, in and of itself, is a mild form of anthropomorphism — trying to inflict pain on the object.
      - andrewflnr 15d ago
        That's a very... bleak perspective on your brother's motives. Sometimes you just want to get rid of an object that causes frustration. When that attitude is applied to humans, we usually call it a symptom of dehumanization.
        zephen 15d ago
        > That's a very... bleak perspective on your brother's motives. Well, it may have been an overstatement, but not by much. Look, I have anger issues, but I never get angry at things because they are never trying to hurt me, and nothing good can come of it. I could probably fix most remote control issues (e.g. bad battery contact), but not after it's been smashed. I also tend to feel the same way about, e.g., a rabid dog or vermin. Get rid of them, but not in anger.
- coffeefirst 15d ago
  Yes. It’s called the ELIZA Effect. It’s fascinating, and arguably the most dangerous thing about these models given how many people it seems to affect.
antonyt 15d ago
These are not contradictory statements to me. Even if I don't anthropomorphize LLMs, the damn things anthropomorphize themselves and I have to deal with it. "Posing" is the key word.
- Terr_ 15d ago
  I think this boils down to how it can be tough to tell the difference between: 1. I speak about it as if it were a person because I have embedded some beliefs and expectations which are wrong. 2. I speak about it as if it were a person just because that's just how the English language works when describing complicated things. Similarly, the faceless mannequin in the clothing store "poses" as a person, and even "beckons" customers with an outstretched arm, yet nobody on the sidewalk is confused or falls in love [0] with the mannequin. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mannequin_(1987_film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mannequin_(1987_film)
zephen 15d ago
Honestly, I think he's pointing out that the LLM creators have intended the LLMs to anothromorphize themselves. Case in point: Gemini just asked me "Where should we start?". When I asked it if that turn of phrase was used by the creators to invite the users to anthropomorphize the model, it's first paragraph was: Yes, to a significant extent. While system designers rarely state their goal as "making users believe the AI is a living being," tech companies deliberately design conversational agents to evoke social and relational instincts.
seanpquig 15d ago
He means don't anthropomorphize them with respect to pretending they have inherent desires, morals, sentience, etc. It's impossible to not compare the UI given them (conversational text) to human interactions since that's the inherent design.
happytoexplain 15d ago
This is a petty "gotcha". The statements are not in conflict. > Maybe he should have had an AI check his post :D Can we please stop this sort of smirking provocation?
- osiejfiejf 15d ago
  Not even a gotcha since they are not “getting” anyone at anything. They completely misunderstood the author’s point and got heated up about something they made up in their own head. That’s about as far from a gotcha as you can get.
bunderbunder 15d ago
I see no conflict. He's explaining why he has a visceral reaction. He makes no attempt to suggest that this is a logical conclusion. Des goûts et des couleurs, on ne discute pas. Nor does the assertion that the LLM is "making a pretense" and "posing as" human anthropomorphize them beyond the level of anthropomorphism that was deliberately built into them as part of their design.
brazukadev 15d ago
That's exactly my thoughts about the post. You don't treat a calculator like a youngling when you don't like it.
Ancapistani 15d ago
I don’t think those are contradictory at all. My personal agent is prompted in a way to “believe” that it has full personhood. It makes it more open to novel solutions in my experience - but I don’t believe that it’s a person. It’s still just a token prediction routine, not a conscious entity.
deleted 15d ago
[deleted]
osiejfiejf 15d ago
Funny that you love something you misunderstood so completely. Maybe you should have had an AI check if your “aha gotcha!” Was actually a gotcha or you’d just end up embarrassing yourself. Because, as it turns out… it’s the latter. There’s no conflict there. They are not anthropomorphising AIs, they are saying companies deliberately design AI interfaces to anthropomorphise themselves and the personality they try to mimic is one the author would avoid themselves if they were met with. There’s absolutely no contradiction here. In fact, it strengthens their original point in that: anthropomorphising AIs is a bad idea. It’s a bad practice. It’s just bad. End of. Maybe leave the snark for when you’re actually right.

sanderjd 15d ago

Sometimes I wonder if this is a personality thing. It has never occurred to me to anthropomorphize these things. But it seems like a huge number of people struggle with this.

Retr0id 15d ago
I suspect harness and usage modality is a big factor. Personally I disable all "memory" features wherever possible. I don't want the LLM to "get to know me", or any illusion thereof, which I assume helps with not anthropomorphizing it.
- sanderjd 15d ago
  I use memory all the time so that I can ask it about things. That doesn't mean it "knows me" any more than my notes documents do, it's just more convenient to search.
  - zephen 15d ago
    > That doesn't mean it "knows me" any more than my notes documents do But are you happy handing over your notes documents to mass aggregators of information?
    - sanderjd 15d ago
      In general, yes.
      - zephen 15d ago
        I'd be happy doing it 99.99% of the time myself, but I don't want to form the habit to think it's a good thing to do.
        sanderjd 14d ago
        Yeah I don't think we disagree that much about this. But I'm not really worried about this particular habit forming risk. I can see where you're coming from though.
- zephen 15d ago
  I do the same. But frankly, I mostly use (greenfield, non-remembering) LLMs directly to counteract the enshittification of search brought on by attempts to use AI to remember things about me (and especially to sell me things). This works well for me because (a) I'm usually using my desktop, and (b) I'm a touch-typist. I want to say that my search results have gotten back to where they were a decade or more ago by doing this, even though I often have to give a couple of prompts in order to get the LLM to provide me a useful link.
  - sanderjd 15d ago
    I guess I'm also pretty skeptical of the "automatically remember things about me" functionality. But I really like being able to say "hey make sure to remember this fact" and being able to ask about those things later.
    - rsfern 15d ago
      For me the convenience of “hey remember this fact” is outweighed by a desire not to get stuck in a search or context bubble. It might be nice to have better UI to control which bits of history get added to the context of a chat, but then just use a coding harness instead of web UI
      - sanderjd 15d ago
        Maybe. But I don't just use it for coding. For instance one thing I use it for is helping me track and evolve my workouts over time. It helps that it can remember the weight and number of reps I did the previous time. I could make an app for this, but it works well to do it purely within chat, with memory, and that's convenient. This is just an example, I use it this way for a number of things. I'm not going to use a coding harness for this kind of trivial use case!
zephen 15d ago
My daughter is a pediatrician and just gave a talk on mental health problems (including suicides) brought on by the sort of personality that succumbs to this. I find it interesting. For most of my life, I have gotten on well with (well-designed) machines. I'm the sort of guy who, when they bring me in to show me what's broken, it works in front of me. Maybe I get on with well-designed machines better than people. Because people are never well-designed. So, when LLMs are working properly, I get along well with them, but when they're not, I'm unhappy. But I never confuse any of my machines for people.
- sanderjd 15d ago
  Yeah to me it's just "oh what a nice interface for compressing information and accessing it upon request!", not at all "I'm talking to a person". But I dunno, maybe we're the weird ones.
  - zephen 15d ago
    I know I'm weird. I remember watching my brother get frustrated with a dysfunctional remote control. He threw it forcefully enough at a stone fireplace to shatter it. From my perspective, that, in and of itself, is a mild form of anthropomorphism — trying to inflict pain on the object.
    - andrewflnr 15d ago
      That's a very... bleak perspective on your brother's motives. Sometimes you just want to get rid of an object that causes frustration. When that attitude is applied to humans, we usually call it a symptom of dehumanization.
      - zephen 15d ago
        > That's a very... bleak perspective on your brother's motives. Well, it may have been an overstatement, but not by much. Look, I have anger issues, but I never get angry at things because they are never trying to hurt me, and nothing good can come of it. I could probably fix most remote control issues (e.g. bad battery contact), but not after it's been smashed. I also tend to feel the same way about, e.g., a rabid dog or vermin. Get rid of them, but not in anger.
coffeefirst 15d ago
Yes. It’s called the ELIZA Effect. It’s fascinating, and arguably the most dangerous thing about these models given how many people it seems to affect.

antonyt 15d ago

These are not contradictory statements to me. Even if I don't anthropomorphize LLMs, the damn things anthropomorphize themselves and I have to deal with it. "Posing" is the key word.

Terr_ 15d ago
I think this boils down to how it can be tough to tell the difference between: 1. I speak about it as if it were a person because I have embedded some beliefs and expectations which are wrong. 2. I speak about it as if it were a person just because that's just how the English language works when describing complicated things. Similarly, the faceless mannequin in the clothing store "poses" as a person, and even "beckons" customers with an outstretched arm, yet nobody on the sidewalk is confused or falls in love [0] with the mannequin. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mannequin_(1987_film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mannequin_(1987_film)

zephen 15d ago

Honestly, I think he's pointing out that the LLM creators have intended the LLMs to anothromorphize themselves. Case in point: Gemini just asked me "Where should we start?". When I asked it if that turn of phrase was used by the creators to invite the users to anthropomorphize the model, it's first paragraph was: Yes, to a significant extent. While system designers rarely state their goal as "making users believe the AI is a living being," tech companies deliberately design conversational agents to evoke social and relational instincts.

seanpquig 15d ago

He means don't anthropomorphize them with respect to pretending they have inherent desires, morals, sentience, etc. It's impossible to not compare the UI given them (conversational text) to human interactions since that's the inherent design.

happytoexplain 15d ago

This is a petty "gotcha". The statements are not in conflict. > Maybe he should have had an AI check his post :D Can we please stop this sort of smirking provocation?

osiejfiejf 15d ago
Not even a gotcha since they are not “getting” anyone at anything. They completely misunderstood the author’s point and got heated up about something they made up in their own head. That’s about as far from a gotcha as you can get.

bunderbunder 15d ago

I see no conflict. He's explaining why he has a visceral reaction. He makes no attempt to suggest that this is a logical conclusion. Des goûts et des couleurs, on ne discute pas. Nor does the assertion that the LLM is "making a pretense" and "posing as" human anthropomorphize them beyond the level of anthropomorphism that was deliberately built into them as part of their design.

brazukadev 15d ago

That's exactly my thoughts about the post. You don't treat a calculator like a youngling when you don't like it.

Ancapistani 15d ago

I don’t think those are contradictory at all. My personal agent is prompted in a way to “believe” that it has full personhood. It makes it more open to novel solutions in my experience - but I don’t believe that it’s a person. It’s still just a token prediction routine, not a conscious entity.

deleted 15d ago

[deleted]

osiejfiejf 15d ago

Funny that you love something you misunderstood so completely. Maybe you should have had an AI check if your “aha gotcha!” Was actually a gotcha or you’d just end up embarrassing yourself. Because, as it turns out… it’s the latter. There’s no conflict there. They are not anthropomorphising AIs, they are saying companies deliberately design AI interfaces to anthropomorphise themselves and the personality they try to mimic is one the author would avoid themselves if they were met with. There’s absolutely no contradiction here. In fact, it strengthens their original point in that: anthropomorphising AIs is a bad idea. It’s a bad practice. It’s just bad. End of. Maybe leave the snark for when you’re actually right.