21–30 of 48 posts
When my daughter was 7yo and she talked to chatgpt, she repeatedly asked, what's your name? are you a boy or a girl? eventually she lost interest at the evasiveness of the answers, like she marked it as not fun to interact with, not a real person. It's different now, that she understands it can help with homework :D
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't this about children attributing human characteristics onto the LLM, rather than the LLM itself pretending to be human? 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?
Do Bluey and Peppa Pig produce convincing human-like responses to virtually any human-generated input directed towards them? If so, then uhh yeah we should definitely regulate that shit
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?
Why allow anthropomorphism in LLM or any computer output, for any age group? A simple regulation would be that all LLM output must: * Explicitly identify itself as a computer * Identify the human or human org controlling it (e.g., 'This is Claude v8.90 software made by Anthropic.') * Not attempt to mimic humans except for entertainment purposes, and then clearly labeled (e.g., 'This is not a human. It is a computer p…
Isn't this about children attributing human characteristics onto the LLM, rather than the LLM itself pretending to be human? 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?
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.
I have the same urge - third-person the LLM is an it, for sure, but I'm not aware of a suitable second-person construction for talking to things. Maybe we need to invent one.
"Claude, you useless piece of shit, I already told you..."
Why allow anthropomorphism in LLM or any computer output, for any age group? A simple regulation would be that all LLM output must: * Explicitly identify itself as a computer * Identify the human or human org controlling it (e.g., 'This is Claude v8.90 software made by Anthropic.') * Not attempt to mimic humans except for entertainment purposes, and then clearly labeled (e.g., 'This is not a human. It is a computer p…
This sounds like the kind of well-intentioned thinking that results in products that are no safer practically but are far more unpleasant to interact with. This is like the pop up every time I start my car that reminds me I should not play with the screen while I’m driving.
> 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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What things? Again, I don't see any but manipulation and fraud, but I certainly could be missing some.
Role play, which is a huge consumer of tokens. You can glance at openrouter's usage stats and see what apps tokens are going to and what the inference content was classified as. It's quite revealing.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because it makes the product mostly useless for all kinds of things?
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.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This sounds like the kind of well-intentioned thinking that results in products that are no safer practically but are far more unpleasant to interact with. This is like the pop up every time I start my car that reminds me I should not play with the screen while I’m driving.
Would you give examples of possible negative results, especially those that outweigh the benefits? Do you have ideas on how to do it better? > 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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This sounds like the kind of well-intentioned thinking that results in products that are no safer practically but are far more unpleasant to interact with. This is like the pop up every time I start my car that reminds me I should not play with the screen while I’m driving.
Would you give examples of possible negative results, especially those that outweigh the benefits? Do you have ideas on how to do it better? > 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.
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 …”