You've reached the end!
> please do $x
>> $x
> thanks. Now do $y
If I have ever spent a whole turn on something that could be called a thank you is was something like "the way you answer that [in specific way] was very helpful – thanks. Can you please remember to raise that sort of point in the future?" So still not an extra round
But, more honestly, it's just a social habit and saving keystrokes isn't worth training myself out of it.
It's more for me than anything. Kind of cathartic, really. "Man curses at machine, calls its mother a toaster."
That rubber duck you used to talk to is still there... You don't have to pay a prostitute just to be able to think out loud.
Chatbots go through a reinforcement learning phase, which should be enough to make the LLM helpful regardless of the tone of the prompt, but you may still get better result if your prompt is made in a way that would get the most helpful response from a human.
It is not anthropomorphizing, it is helping the LLM recognize a pattern.
It makes me feel better, but doesn't help.
I just see:
Thinking: The user is unhappy. I need to .... <whatever> (and then probably the same dumb shit again).
LLMs are useful but sometimes fucking frustrating dumb shits of loose transitors.
But this only makes sense in the context of a new ask, and not as a standalone message
We anthropomorphise things very easily -- dogs, toys, cars -- because we're wired as social beings to have theory of mind. It's no surprise that AI chat, which mimics us, is popular.
I don’t reply “thanks” like I would to a person though, I just close the chat if I have no more follow-ups
But yes where I think it will introduce additional weight to my prompting, e.g. 'Ensure the output is orange' is not the same weighting as 'Please ensure the output is orange' and that is not the same weighting as 'PLEASE ensure the output is orange'.
The anthropomorphisation those companies push is one of the most annoying and unhealthy aspect of llms.
If we reduce back to the “LLMs are next word prediction algorithms” and they have a huge training corpus including positive and negative human interactions, it’s not crazy to think they’ll be influenced by the flow of those learned interactions and respond subtly better to positive interactions than negative.
I think it is ridiculous to even suggest
Imagine typing "please" and "thank you' into Google's search bar for the past 20 years. That would be absolutely nonsense right? So why would I use those words for an LLM
Frankly, I think it's suggestive of a deficiency in people if they can't engage with non-human things as though they were human. Someone who wouldn't talk to a Roomba, for example, never chats to their laptop when it beeps, doesn't wave sliding doors open, doesn't act human except when it really benefits them--that's weird.
It's similar to the Voight-Kampff test [1], I think; how you act all the time, the emotional responses you build to things you interact with, all of this is part of being human. There's something wrong with people who don't see something wrong with bullying a robot [2], even if it can't feel pain, and most people can sense that. Our ability to form connections even with things that can't form connections with us is important [3].
An LLM isn't alive, but it pretends to be. You should have an emotional response to that, even if it's horror. The dead-eyed 'I minimise tokens' says nothing good about the speaker. Empathy should be your default, not a performance.
[1] https://bladerunner.fandom.com/wiki/Voight-Kampff_test [2] https://interestingengineering.com/culture/humanoid-robot-mi... [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAwSVOlOgH8
Humans are social and the ELIZA effect is perfectly normal and expected imho.
I do talk to my devices occaiosnally though. Things like "You're coming with me" to my laptop before picking it up and putting it in my backpack
arnab777•3h ago