I think it’s pretty fair and I was not being quite as absolutist as you’re making my statement out to be. I said by and large it is a possible mental health crisis developing (or an existing one being expressed which I omitted). There are other possibilities, most of which I would say fall under “this person just doesn’t understand what an LLM is/isn’t and why it can’t engage in a consensual relationship.” I also did not call anybody “sick.” That’s a very loaded term when we are talking about mental wellness, and one I would never use in this context. This may all feel nitpicky to you but the way I’m talking about this issue is intentional. All that being said I can acknowledge that it was kind of glib, that it is my stance based on pretty clear evidence you can’t have a romantic relationship with a large language model, and that I’m happy to elaborate on my stance.
An LLM cannot love somebody because it is not a person or otherwise sentient/capable of a relationship. You cannot be in love with it. Loving your dog is one thing. Being in love with your dog is another. This is because nearly everyone understands that that kind of love cannot be reciprocated and a human being cannot be in romantic love with a dog. A dog for its part can’t even consent to that relationship. Neither can a computer (possibly “yet”).
I would say, generally speaking, somebody who does not understand an LLM is incapable of reciprocating love (or any real “feelings” indicating a real relationship) and who has been told what an LLM is (and understands it more or less) is likely somebody who needs to talk to a therapist. If I said this about somebody being in love with their pet nobody would call it “borderline disrespectful.”
> you'll see that many people claim to perfectly well understand how it works, some of them even being software developers themselves, yet they still describe what they feel as "love"
This statement is what prompted me to comment. Like I said above if someone knows what an LLM is (and presumably isn’t) then it’s very concerning that they still believe a romantic, consensual, reciprocated relationship is possible. If you didn’t have that part then I would say “it can also be an education problem.” But the premise you set entirely removes any need to qualify that and makes this situation all the more concerning. Your phrasing makes me think you think that makes it better, but IMO it makes the situation worse.
For emphasis: you established that these people more or less understand what they are interacting with, yet choose to pursue a “relationship” with an LLM anyway. This is incredibly troubling behavior in this context with far reaching mental health implications.
Let me just ask you point blank: do you think LLM’s are sentient/akin to people? Do you think someone is capable of being in a loving, healthy relationship with an LLM today? Because to me it’s at best a potentially harmful misunderstanding that can be clarified with education and at worst…well, like I said, the possibilities can be very deeply troubling. But ultimately my point is it can’t be a real, consensual, reciprocated relationship. It simply can’t. That’s not “lack of understanding,” that’s reality.