She took it all in, and then turned to me and asked: “Is that robot’s family living in the ocean?”
As a matter of fact, for the line of work I do (programming, devops, the works) being conscious about the fact that I am just getting an algorithm outputting text that is probabilistically related to the input I gave it would actually be healthy for me and my mental state.
I HATE having to say "you" when working with an LLM.
"Claude, you useless piece of shit, I already told you..."
I'm Australian, so "oi cunt" works about as well as "you" for most things, though I'm not suggesting we adopt that formally.
I don't know what machine they were raging against, but I'm pretty sure it was an LLMOne solution is to use commands (imperatives), as you've always done with computers. For example, instead of 'you are an expert in Lisp', say 'function as an expert in Lisp.'
Are there use cases where that isn't applicable.
We all know the "voice" of log output of normal, non-LLM computer programs. Usually, the statements are in passive voice and tersely describe what the program is doing or print new kind of data available. An LLM with that style would already sound much more like a computer program than a person.
E.g. an answer to your example prompt could be something like:
* Locating relevant code for "genserver" and "sync" in the codebase...
* Reading files...
* Data collection completed. Analysis results are as follows:
* Factors that suggest a bottleneck are:
- ...
* Factors that speak against a bottleneck are:
- ...
* Overall assessment:
- ...
* Request complete.
Or something like that.It is a matter of definition, but a start would be eliminating the social and conversational aspects and attempts at emotional connection.
mmooss•1d ago
A simple regulation would be that all LLM output must:
What violation of those regulations would be for other than defrauding and/or manipulationg people? They are easily complied with and I don't see those regulations impacting the economic productivity gains projected for LLM use.ndnichols•1d ago
pixl97•1d ago
mmooss•1d ago
all2•1d ago
estearum•23h ago
selectodude•22h ago
mmooss•20h ago
It shouldn't interfere with immersion: People suspend disbelief in movie theaters or reading books, despite knowing it's a film or novel. The risk with AI is that people don't understand what an LLM is.
windexh8er•1d ago
4b11b4•1d ago
dpark•23h ago
mmooss•20h ago
> like the pop up every time I start my car that reminds me I should not play with the screen while I’m driving.
If something like that is the worst result, there is little downside.
dpark•19h ago
mmooss•9h ago
dpark•7h ago
victorbjorklund•18h ago
The correct answer would sound just like a human unless you either make it do shallow annoying stuff like add redundant ”as an LLM I can’t think or recommend but the answer with the highest probability is …”
marcus_holmes•23h ago
And we do this with lots of things that are not human for children (e.g. Bluey and Peppa Pig). Do we need a "this is not a human" warning for them, too?
estearum•23h ago
If so, then uhh yeah we should definitely regulate that shit
marcus_holmes•22h ago
I'm not completely clear on what we're afraid of here, though. We routinely project human-like characteristics onto non-human things for our children. We don't think this is harmful. Why are we worried about children projecting human characteristics onto an LLM?
estearum•13h ago
We routinely give our children ibuprofen or acetaminophen, this does not imply that some vicodin or oxycontin would be fine.
I think it's a reasonable assumption that a fundamental skill of being a good social creature (which we know to be absolutely critical to good human health) is to be able to distinguish between human and non-human. Or more generally conscious and non-conscious.
You are basing your opinion off of e.g. anthropomorphizing cars or dolls which 1) are obviously not human, and 2) rely on the fairly intense imagination of the anthropomorphizer to "work." Once the imagination stops, the anthropomorphization stops.
In contrast, LLMs successfully delude even intelligent adults into anthropomorphizing them. This is especially problematic for a generation of humans that grow up where most of their human-to-human communication happens intermediated by technology, i.e. LLM-originated interaction looks more human every day, but also human-originated interaction looks more LLM- (or technology-)originated every day too.
We've been living with this pathology for a while now in the form of people treating those humans on the other side of a chatbox vastly worse than they would ever treat a human face to face. Now this is chewing away at the distinction from the other end too.