Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Anthropomorphism in Children's Interactions with LLM Chatbots

arxiv.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–48 of 48 posts

Re: Anthropomorphism in Children's Interactions with LLM Chatbots

#41

Post by mmooss »

victorbjorklund wrote: post #37
xg15 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More "Star Trek computer" and less C3PO would be a start. 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: *…

Sounds just like bad UX and harder to use.

What about it is 'bad UX' or harder? It seems simple, effective, and more efficient to me.

Re: Anthropomorphism in Children's Interactions with LLM Chatbots

#42

Post by dpark »

mmooss wrote: post #39
dpark wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The downside is it’s annoying as hell. The upside seems limited to a bureaucratic pat on the back for “doing something good”.

I don't see any basis offered for what you're saying.

The annoyance of every AI announcing is a machine every time it’s invoked is obvious. I don’t see any basis offered for this actually doing anything beneficial.

Re: Anthropomorphism in Children's Interactions with LLM Chatbots

#43

Post by marcus_holmes »

estearum wrote: post #36
marcus_holmes wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If not now, then soon, yes. I'll bet money there's a toy manufacturer somewhere working out how to hook a Bluey doll up to an LLM to make it responsive. 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?

Obviously the people who think LLMs should be forbidden from this use-case would think it should be forbidden from put-it-in-a-doll use-case. 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 heal…

I'm always wary of extrapolating from the few individuals who experience that harmful interaction with chatbots to the general population. We have the same thing with every new tech, that some people react badly/too strongly to it and get into a mental health situation [0]. There's nothing unusual about LLM chatbots in this respect. So yes, some people anthropomorphise LLMs too much, but that's not a statement you can make about the general population as "even intelligent adults anthropomorphise LLMs too much".

We are also talking about kids, who will grow up with this technology around them and adapt to it better than we do as adults. We see it as a threat and a change to the natural order of things, because we grew up without it. Kids growing up with it will see it as part of the natural order of things and will learn how to incorporate it into their lives. That will take some adaptation, sure, but that's the same with every new technology. The answer is not to shield them from it, because we just put off the day that they get exposed to it with no training. We must coach and teach them how to deal with it healthily. Of course, that means that we ourselves as adults need to work out how to deal with it healthily first, which isn't always obvious ;)

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_addiction_disorder

Re: Anthropomorphism in Children's Interactions with LLM Chatbots

#44

Post by estearum »

marcus_holmes wrote: post #43
estearum wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obviously the people who think LLMs should be forbidden from this use-case would think it should be forbidden from put-it-in-a-doll use-case. 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 heal…

I'm always wary of extrapolating from the few individuals who experience that harmful interaction with chatbots to the general population. We have the same thing with every new tech, that some people react badly/too strongly to it and get into a mental health situation [0]. There's nothing unusual about LLM chatbots in this respect. So yes, some people anthropomorphise LLMs too much, but that's not a statement you ca…

Does this techno-optimist logic apply to all technologies, e.g. glyphosate or oxycontin, or only to technologies that you first presume are safe/positive, and then you can just argue from that presumption?

Re: Anthropomorphism in Children's Interactions with LLM Chatbots

#45

Post by ericol »

mmooss wrote: post #28
ericol wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't need a computer to mimic a human. AT ALL 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.

Don't say 'you'? One 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.

I don't think that works at all times; actually I think it only works when starting a conversation. In the middle, "Why ~did you~ while action as an export in Lisp ?" needs a certain level of mind gynmastics that is not worth it. I'd rather curse at it.

Re: Anthropomorphism in Children's Interactions with LLM Chatbots

#46

Post by mmooss »

ericol wrote: post #45
mmooss wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't say 'you'? One 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.

I don't think that works at all times; actually I think it only works when starting a conversation. In the middle, "Why ~did you~ while action as an export in Lisp ?" needs a certain level of mind gynmastics that is not worth it. I'd rather curse at it.

I do wonder if there are circumstances where it doesn't work. But it's hard to believe I'm addressing basic syntax for computer commands on HN:

'Display the cause of the '.

> needs a certain level of mind gynmastics that is not worth it. I'd rather curse at it.

I guess I knew an LLM's natural language interface made it easier to use for non-technical users. But wow, it's been normalized so quickly. Now the universal old way, needed for every line of code and command line and more, is "mind gynmastics"?

Inputting curses seems just odd to me, beyond the initial novelty. It's a distraction, completely unproductive, and sending emotion into a void.

Anthropomorphisizing it seems dangerous personally and society-wide.

Re: Anthropomorphism in Children's Interactions with LLM Chatbots

#47

Post by marcus_holmes »

estearum wrote: post #44
marcus_holmes wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm always wary of extrapolating from the few individuals who experience that harmful interaction with chatbots to the general population. We have the same thing with every new tech, that some people react badly/too strongly to it and get into a mental health situation [0]. There's nothing unusual about LLM chatbots in this respect. So yes, some people anthropomorphise LLMs too much, but that's not a statement you ca…

Does this techno-optimist logic apply to all technologies, e.g. glyphosate or oxycontin, or only to technologies that you first presume are safe/positive, and then you can just argue from that presumption?

I know you're making a bad-faith argument, but it's a good question.

So yes, kids growing up in areas where Oxycontin abuse is prevalent will be much, much, more aware of what that technology does (both the good and the bad) than an adult who is encountering it for the first time. The adult will be way more easily lead into using it by the adverts and advise of the people selling it, the kid will not believe any of that.

All technologies are both harmful and beneficial. We have a Fire Department for a reason, but that doesn't mean we'd go back to eating our food raw.

Re: Anthropomorphism in Children's Interactions with LLM Chatbots

#48

Post by estearum »

marcus_holmes wrote: post #47
estearum wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does this techno-optimist logic apply to all technologies, e.g. glyphosate or oxycontin, or only to technologies that you first presume are safe/positive, and then you can just argue from that presumption?

I know you're making a bad-faith argument, but it's a good question. So yes, kids growing up in areas where Oxycontin abuse is prevalent will be much, much, more aware of what that technology does (both the good and the bad) than an adult who is encountering it for the first time. The adult will be way more easily lead into using it by the adverts and advise of the people selling it, the kid will not believe any of t…

> So yes, kids growing up in areas where Oxycontin abuse is prevalent will be much, much, more aware of what that technology does (both the good and the bad) than an adult who is encountering it for the first time. The adult will be way more easily lead into using it by the adverts and advise of the people selling it, the kid will not believe any of that.

Uhhh... this is so obviously untrue it's pretty surprising you hit "Submit" after writing it.

By this logic, deep West Virginia where Oxycontin first took hold should chock full of teetotalers "because they know how bad it is" a generation later. This, of course, is not reality. Bad things can and often do actually persist for generations and kill or maim vast numbers of people throughout.

That's because your fundamental thesis of some innate, guaranteed "immune response" to bad things just literally doesn't exist. Sometimes groups of people react and successfully overcome maladaptive exogenous shocks, but sometimes they just get hurt really badly for huge stretches of time. Sometimes entire groups of people are permanently eradicated by bad things.

And no, raising a counterexample is not a bad faith argument.

Post reply on HN