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

31–40 of 48 posts

Re: Anthropomorphism in Children's Interactions with LLM Chatbots

#31

Post by marcus_holmes »

wpm wrote: post #25
marcus_holmes wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

When yelling at the other appliances I own, "you" usually turns into "you fucker" or "you useless piece of shit", so I stick with what I know. "Claude, you useless piece of shit, I already told you..."

Always loved the tweet: "I don't know what machine they were raging against, but I'm pretty sure it was a printer" [paraphrased]. We could definitely update that.

I'm Australian, so "oi cunt" works about as well as "you" for most things, though I'm not suggesting we adopt that formally.

Re: Anthropomorphism in Children's Interactions with LLM Chatbots

#32

Post by marcus_holmes »

smcg wrote: post #23
marcus_holmes wrote: post #13

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?

We probably do, considering how many seem to treat it as companionship or therapy.

Yeah that's adults, though. Unless we go down the McDonalds coffee warning path "warning: this LLM is not human and can harm you if you treat it as human"

Re: Anthropomorphism in Children's Interactions with LLM Chatbots

#33

Post by BrenBarn »

pixl97 wrote: post #4
mmooss wrote: post #2

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…

Because it makes the product mostly useless for all kinds of things?

I'd say making LLMs useless would be a net positive for humanity.

Re: Anthropomorphism in Children's Interactions with LLM Chatbots

#34

Post by xg15 »

victorbjorklund wrote: post #30
mmooss wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What does it even mean ”do not mimick humans”? How are the AI supposed to reply if I ask ”do you think this genserver will be a bottleneck in the sync process and how can we fix it?” 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 …”

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:

   * 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.

Re: Anthropomorphism in Children's Interactions with LLM Chatbots

#35

Post by cainxinth »

When my niece was very young, I showed her my Polaris pool cleaner. It’s a simple contraption. Just some hoses attached to a small box with a few wheels. It rolls around the pool, sucking up leaves on the bottom.

She took it all in, and then turned to me and asked: “Is that robot’s family living in the ocean?”

Re: Anthropomorphism in Children's Interactions with LLM Chatbots

#36

Post by estearum »

marcus_holmes wrote: post #22
estearum wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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 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.

Re: Anthropomorphism in Children's Interactions with LLM Chatbots

#37

Post by victorbjorklund »

xg15 wrote: post #34
victorbjorklund wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does it even mean ”do not mimick humans”? How are the AI supposed to reply if I ask ”do you think this genserver will be a bottleneck in the sync process and how can we fix it?” 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 …”

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.

Re: Anthropomorphism in Children's Interactions with LLM Chatbots

#38

Post by ericol »

marcus_holmes wrote: post #31
wpm wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When yelling at the other appliances I own, "you" usually turns into "you fucker" or "you useless piece of shit", so I stick with what I know. "Claude, you useless piece of shit, I already told you..."

Always loved the tweet: "I don't know what machine they were raging against, but I'm pretty sure it was a printer" [paraphrased]. We could definitely update that. I'm Australian, so "oi cunt" works about as well as "you" for most things, though I'm not suggesting we adopt that formally.

ok that cracked me. Could be worth of an update:

    I don't know what machine they were raging against, but I'm pretty sure it was an LLM

Re: Anthropomorphism in Children's Interactions with LLM Chatbots

#39

Post by mmooss »

dpark wrote: post #29
mmooss wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 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.

Re: Anthropomorphism in Children's Interactions with LLM Chatbots

#40

Post by mmooss »

victorbjorklund wrote: post #30
mmooss wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What does it even mean ”do not mimick humans”? How are the AI supposed to reply if I ask ”do you think this genserver will be a bottleneck in the sync process and how can we fix it?” 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 …”

Computers long have always, before LLMs, and most still do do output responses that don't sound like humans. It's hard to understand why you think that's hard.

It is a matter of definition, but a start would be eliminating the social and conversational aspects and attempts at emotional connection.

Post reply on HN