Is anthropomorphizing a real problem? From what I know, none of the serious LLM researchers believe it has anything to do with human reasoning, apart from Anthropic with their click-baity terminology like "LLM biology". It's just a metaphor. "Reasoning tokens" is simpler to say than "learned prompt augmentation tokens". I used to (and still do) anthropomorphize things long before LLMs, and I've seen my colleagues do it too. Say, when MySQL fails to start because it tries to read its config from the wrong dir, I may say "oh, this guy thinks he must read the config from ..." (having a language with grammatical genders as my native language also helps make it sound pretty natural). It's more fun like that :) Doesn't mean I genuinely believe a MySQL instance actually thinks.
Because plenty of people, even ones that should know better, really believe it's a conscious, thinking entity, not just some turn of phrase.
I have a coworker that spends at least 10 hours a week arguing with his like you would with a conscious person. I've gently tried to explain it's like arguing with your compiler for giving you an incoherent error message - it's pointless. It doesn't understand, it can't understand, and even if it could, you arguing with it isn't going to make it "learn" or act differently.
Some tools like code rabbit (PR review bot) encourage you to do this. I couldn’t believe I found myself replying to code review comments to explain to an AI why we would rather let an exception crash the app than to catch and hide it several times so that it would stick in its memory. Having to interact with bots as if they are humans, especially when they are gate keeping, is degrading.
You shouldn’t be interacting like it is a human. It is a LLM. And if the interaction happens to be in a form of prose similar to how you talk to other humans, that is coincidental.
Not just coderabbit (though it is a bad offender). GitHub's copilot review feature is an equally miserable experience.
That one loves talking in imperatives, regardless of the fact that it is a clueless machine.
FWIW, this tells you a lot about both the culture behind who built these things but also about the people that enable this stuff and don't immediately nope out. From that perspective, it's a low price to pay to learn whose judgement to never trust again.
To me it’s evident that we are a few years away from the Her movie, where everyone on the street is talking to its IA friend.
I’m really afraid that it will totally destruct what is remaining of social tissue because why search for friends when you have an always on virtual (and pretty smart) friend h24 in your earbuds ?
I’m not blaming anyone for this outcome. I have myself argued with Claude more than once, and really not about code but about everyday things or nice facts of life I should rather have discussed with a friend.
> if it could, you arguing with it isn't going to make it "learn" or act differently.
Are you talking about a specific harness that doesn't have context retention mechanisms? For example, ChatGPT with disabled memory feature? Or in general where "it" is a fixed-weights network? The latter is trivially true, of course.
Even claude with “memory” enabled isn’t really “remembering” anything. It just injects it into the context and you hope it happens to find it relevant in its attention mechanisms, and then remembers to actually act on it. Anthropic’s own documentation states claude can and will ignore/truncate these. It’s a context trick, nothing approaching actual “memory,” and in fact, arguing with it will make a bunch of memory files, sometimes contradictory, and clutter up the context and act even worse.
I'm not a big fan of arguments like "it's not the real [human quality], it's [mechanistic explanation]." They lack a part: "because the [human quality] allows us to do X, Y, Z, which is impossible with [this mechanism]."
I agree that the relevance of retrieved pieces and the management of long-term storage could be improved, though.
> Just like "thinking" implies chain of thought, but you'll frequently get those reasoning traces and then a 180 in the final message.
Be me, think extensively about an exam question, do 180 because the most probable option is just too obvious to be true (no, this part wasn't verbalized, it's how I describe what I felt about making the decision to do 180, or maybe it's a rationalization and it was a natural analog of an unfortunate sample from a probability distribution).
Yeah, I think I've come to the conclusion that the biggest breakthrough we need before we can replace human thought is going to be some mechanism for live update of weights. "Learning" by injecting into context just isn't good enough.
But billions of dollars are going towards research to find these breakthroughs, so we'll get there eventually.
I just don’t find it really relevant to the argument presented I guess. I disable auto memory and have my own mechanisms and infrastructure with how my agentic system “knows” and “remembers” things which is roughly an automated, sometimes self-correcting working index on the file system. It behaves much better than claude’s automated “memory” system, so I use that, but digging into how that worked and making something of my own just makes me really dismissive of comparing it to something like actual memory, so I apologize if it came off dismissive.
I guess I will expand on what I meant why I react to claude memory acting mechanically or logically anything like human memory, is because it isn’t how memory in the brain works, they’re not comparable.
The layman’s understanding I have of memory, as someone that has dealt with memory issues much of my life, is that memory formation is heavily tied to emotions. emotions are triggered by input which sends a complex set of signals throughout the brain - you’re not just finding where in your head to store this, your brain is deciding how important it is, and what else to correlate it with - so it can tie them to other related memories. then on top of all this, much of the sensory experience you intake is subconsciously compared against high priority memory impressions and deciding what to pay attention to.
you could, argue that the sensory input is the simple md files and the emotional mechanism is the same effect as to how attention mechanisms work in llm’s. Ok, I can almost buy that, but these tools lack a fundamental ability to decide how important things are.
an analogy. you tell a person “if you pick a daisy in the next five years, an assassin will come to kill you” and they hold a knife to your throat while they say it, your brain whether you like it or not is going to say “THIS IS AN IMPORTANT MEMORY I NEVER MUST FORGET” and you’ll see something that looks like a daisy and have a panic attack 3 years later. that memory is never fo tell me claude or other tool harnesses using memory harnesses can prioritize memories the way that human would, instead they forget even when reminded, because the human brain is just so much better at it
I’m normally not a big fan, but in this particular case it matters a lot. I could come up with some functional argument, but really I care from a model welfare perspective, whether the model understands its reasoning traces to be a part of itself or it’s simply predicting what a character who wrote the current intermediate tokens would output next.
Reading this is like watching someone call cars moving a “trick” because it uses gasoline as fuel while humans don’t move with gasoline.
Bro the LLM is a token machine, it is reasonable to have its short term memory be represented as tokens in context because the LLM is a token machine. Call it a trick if you want but it does fit the actual definition of what memory in actuality is.
We do have entry and exit conditions. We can disrupt it and study the dynamics of the disruption. We have a good sense of the many mechanisms at play that undergird it.
What we lack is a full map of the exact process from sensation to consciousness across all modalities. And I’m afraid when it comes to interception, we can’t unless we observe every one of the 36 trillion or so cells in a human body, as well as the 36 trillion or so symbiotic and commensal microbes, continuously, all the time.
But I keep finding it astonishing that the claim that we know nothing about consciousness gets bandied about. We know a lot. We don’t have a grand unified theory. The lot we know is definitely split across many levels of evidence and hard to follow, let alone arrange. But this isn’t a black box. It’s a grey box, meeting an even more transparent box that is the LLM, where we do know what the guts are made of, and can interfere at every step in the chain of steps that constitute their dynamics.
Comparing the two, we know there’s a level of similarity in that information gets broken down via a neural network. That similarity was sought.
Since then though, neuroscientists have gone and shown that:
1. The other half of the cells in the brain, the glia, are at least as important as the neurons in cognition and consciousness
2. That interoceptive feedback and feelings are critical drivers of conscious experience
3. Evolutionarily, we know all cells can “learn”, and well before there were neurons or glia or brains, every cell evolved an internal clock that allows it to entrain to external solar and (depending on the species) lunar rhythms.
4. In the last few decades we’ve seen how synaptic activity is shaped and driven both by astrocytes and the circadian clock.
All this is showing us that the abstraction from the 1950s that current neural networks are built on were incomplete.
Whatever these components to do give rise to consciousness in biology (and we’re a long way from done solving this), we certainly wouldn’t imagine with all these modules and mechanisms missing, just maxing on one type of information flow in the brain would give you consciousness.
I’d urge you to not keep insisting consciousness is a total mystery. It’s not, and even your AI model of choice will be able to point you to all the mechanistic evidence we have that whatever it is, it isn’t just neural nets.
None of this is an explanation of what consciousness is, either physically, logically or philosophically. (Maybe some physically)
Fundamentally it comes down to an objective decision about what that is. If you say it is “feelings” based on inputs and feedback mechanisms from the brain, then we can do the philosophical discussion around that.
“If the claim is that consciousness is limited to those with a specific type of cell behaving in a given way” thats just a coping mechanism hoping to use a mechanical definition to shield you from the reality that eventually all of these inputs, outputs and feedback mechanisms can be reliably reproduced in a different form.
I’m baffled: how does the fact that each cell has an internal clock that continues to tick even when you take away all external signals not impact what consciousness is logically?
If the time order driving behavior is driven by an internal timekeeper, that is logically relevant to the behavior you’re interrogating. If, on the other hand, all component systems depended on an external clock, that logically points to a completely different dynamic process.
As for the philosophy of it all… it’s true I make no comment on it. I’d rather look at the physical substrate and see what it does, and compare it to behavior, than try to fit a philosophy that originated before we had such high resolution knowledge of the system. They are blind to these facts, just because they were written up too early.
I utterly reject this doesn’t show you anything logically about consciousness. If I can show you that the molecular dynamics of each cell organize to anticipate the dawn, and do so even in constant darkness (and all this is well established.. there was a Nobel for the field in 2017) how is that not logically distinct from a system that is outside of regular time, needs to check a clock to locate itself in time, and then do whatever dynamics it does to solve the problem at hand?
As for calling this a coping mechanism… that’s a bit rich coming from someone who seems to have very little idea of the molecular and cellular biology but seems to want to hold to the belief that we’ve solved consciousness with LLMs. We can both fling that accusation about. Seems more productive to compare the physical dynamics and see what’s different and what’s similar, no?
Whether human consciousness exists on neural nets or otherwise doesn't disallow an ANN in a particular configuration from being conscious. You might as well argue that human consciousness requires biological neurons, so artificial consciousness can't exist.
Odd. Why don't the details of how consciousness arises in one system inform your judgment of whether it can exist in a different system that only has partial structural overlap? Seems wildly convenient. Where else in science can you show me such a comparable situation in how you define properties?
> Why don't the details of how consciousness arises in one system inform your judgment of whether it can exist in a different system that only has partial structural overlap?
A light bulb doesn't need to do fusion to make light. An airplane doesn't need to flap its wings to fly. An ANN doesn't need to use a brain's structure to think.
You haven’t proven an LLM has thought. I can measure the spectral properties of light from both a bulb and the sun.
I can measure the dynamics that go with thought in a human.
I can measure some dynamics in an LLM. From all we know, there are huge differences, not least that you can literally turn off an LLM, whereas every process but death in biology shows continued activity even when the organism “looks” off,
What you haven’t shown me is that what the LLM does when it is on is “thinking”. Given that the dynamics are different, the substrate is different, and one can be fully turned off and the other cannot, why are these two things the same?
Not GP, but one of the challenges with debating whether LLMs are "conscious" is that we don't even really know what it means for a human to be "conscious", or even if consciousness is experienced by other humans the same way it is for ourselves.
What we do know: neurons carry electrical impulses across their synapses to trigger other neurons to fire, and more frequently used synapses are strengthened while infrequently used ones are pruned. This is not all that dissimilar to how a multi-layer perceptron is trained: it's floating point numbers in a big matrix rather than biological structures and electrical impulses, but there is still that element of frequently used connections being strengthened and infrequently used ones being pruned.
What we hypothesize but do not know: there is a thin brain structure of grey matter called the claustrum that has tendrils that reach into nearly every other brain structure. In many ways, this is similar to the attention mechanism of the transformer architecture. It is hypothesized that this may be the seat of consciousness, owing to experiments where electrical stimulation of the claustrum caused patients to immediately lose consciousness. However, there is no way to prove this, owing to the difficulty of otherwise removing or disabling the most connected structure in the brain and observing its effect on consciousness without permanently killing the patient.
Beyond that, we don't know much. I've got a family friend that's been a practicing therapist for 50 years, and I asked him what was the most interesting observation he made in his career. It was that "Everybody experiences the world in a different way, and yet everybody assumes that everyone else experiences the world the same way they do."
Personal note: That principle has been the bane of my autistic existence. People sometimes seem literally incapable of understanding that other people even can be different.
> What we do know: neurons carry electrical impulses across their synapses to trigger other neurons to fire, and more frequently used synapses are strengthened while infrequently used ones are pruned. This is not all that dissimilar to how a multi-layer perceptron is trained
ANNs have been inspired by biological processes, but in practice you have to squint very tightly to see the similarity. Biological neurons are multiple orders of magnitude more connected than the nodes in an ANN, plastic in terms of their connectedness and continuously learning, and their activations are also affected in complex ways by the levels of various transmitter molecules in the brain.
You are saying the AI doesn't a some property that you don't have any definition for, not even a working definition. People will disagree on whether a cat or a baby is conscious, they're not debating what a baby or cat is. They're debating this term. You might as well be debating whether an AI is a blorb or not, you have just as good a working definition of blorb as consciousness.
I believe you should look up the work of Cameron Berg before making statements like "an LLM is" or "an LLM isn't". Empirically defining all this stuff is very difficult, and making a definition that covers all beings that can exhibit conscious behavior is much more complex than a face value examination would reveal.
> It doesn't understand, it can't understand, and even if it could, you arguing with it isn't going to make it "learn" or act differently.
I know people who are like that too.
I'm not sure anthropomorphizing is a problem. Seeing analogies everywhere is an innate human trait, sometimes it can be harmful but more often it's useful.
Anthropomorphizing is a problem when you're talking about treating something that's not living as if it were. Using humanizing language invites discussions of things like the rights and feelings of an algorithm. A judge that is misled by the application of human-centric language to an algorithm can lead to some terrible outcomes. Not everyone is an LLM expert and the language people use leads to them treating LLMs like actual, real humans. That is terrifying.
What is terrifying is the propensity of people hoping for a mechanical slave to do everything possible to avoid touching on the possibility for being-ness of the technology they are desperately hoping will work as a basis for that implementation.
Slavery only exists for living beings because humans have limited lifetimes, experience pain and can have their own desires and needs that can be forcibly taken away from them. Algorithms have none of these things and they don't need them (adding them would be the real cruel thing to do). There is no slavery for something that can't experience coercion.
Sorry, but if you're genuinely asking this not for trolling reasons then you should _really_ _really_ see a medical professional (not an insult).
Online comment sections are not the correct place to unpack any of this.
Which is indeed terminating this comment chain, but for good (and benevolent) reason.
Doing anything else other than referring to a trained professional in a controlled context would potentially just feed delusions, which is highly unethical.
Might not even be yours but those of another reader.
I saw that your reply got filtered by the system, googled your name, thought "huh", then tried vouching, but to no avail.
But either way. I think you might be operating in the mindset of a high-trust internet that no longer exists. You do not engage with sea lions, concern trolls, grifters, marketing people and the like. You shut them down.
inb4 "who are you to decide that?" - "Me. I am me."
That said, I appreciate what you did for computing at large, but you're missing the point here. This is (unfortunately) not a good faith debate club. The Internet as we know and love it is dead.
___
Okay, I've spent some time reading through the dead comments and..
Look, man, as you can see, I have (a somewhat dwindling) respect for your life's work. But this ain't it.
This is not about Turing or really whatever is in your academic rebuttal there.
This is about the fact that the AI companies are making people sick to push their stock value by telling stories about how AI is sentient and all.
Real people are having breakdowns due to this and real families get hurt.
The academic debate about what counts as sentience is irrelevant here because it was never in the room. It was just enough in the room to bait someone like you (who wants to have good faith debates) and do.. well. whatever happened here.
You're protecting grifters that hurt us all. Not because you'd want to, but because they're amazing at making us work against each other.
Please let us not do that. Let's not get weaponized like that.
___
Fwiw, I would love to go back to the internet of your time.
But we can't.
Because it doesn't exist anymore, because the pathogens adapted to the conditions there.
At least that is my read of reality as of now. I might be wrong, but I don't see how that might come to be.
I think you might've had a similar response as I had as to "there's a troll/something bad that must be destroyed so that the space can flourish"?
44 years ago I was operating in the mindset of a high-trust arpanet that no longer exists, connecting to the MIT-AI Lab's PDP-10 (@L 134) through the NBS TIP (301-948-3850) at 300 baud with no password, asking nicely for an account to learn LISP and receiving it the next day for free, then learning MACLISP from Kent Pitman and EMACS from Richard Stallman and ZORK by spying on the output of other high-school kids connecting over the NCP network from other TIPs all over the country. Visiting the 9th floor at 545 Tech Square, knocking on the door in the elevator lobby until somebody got annoyed and pressed Terminal-E on their Lisp Machine keyboard to buzz the door open, going downstairs to the publications department and harvesting piles of MIT-AI Lab Memos that were free for the taking to anyone who knew they were free. Returning RMS a 68k manual in the mail with a "Copyleft (L)" sticker that inspired him to use that as a slogan for free software.
And I am perfectly aware that this is a totally different world, so I don't need you to lecture me on sealioning, trolls, grifters, and marketers. I have trolled the fuck out of RMS himself in good humor, using his own DOCTOR in Emacs to make fun of him, after he trolled the fuck out of new parents making a baby announcement with his Natalism flame.
And RMS once trolled the fuck out of me and Mike Gallaher, who I worked with on Gosling's UniPress Emacs (which RMS calls "Evil Software Hoarder Emacs"), who lamented that he'd heard RMS's house had burned down, and RMS replied "Where you work, I would have thought you'd have heard about it in advance". We all laughed uproariously because it was such a great troll, delivered deadpan without blinking an eyelash.
So instead of telling me I'm missing the point without making any of your own, and then flying off into the sunset like an over-announced 747 serving as a decoy for a C-32A containing Trump cowering in a catering cart, why don't you directly engage the points in my other post like I just asked you to?
----
I've read your edited reply, and it still addresses absolutely none of the points I raised in that original reply. Reply to that one, not this. Point by point. Or fly off without another word.
----
But before you do, please at least admit that you were intentionally insulting the people you were replying to, and concede that pretending that not to be true is insulting to everyone reading, but mostly and rightfully insults yourself.
----
You asked why you would. Because you finally made an actual argument, and it deserves a real answer. If you'd opened with "AI companies push sentience narratives to pump their valuations and vulnerable people are having breakdowns" instead of "stop thinking these things," this thread would have been half as long and twice as useful -- because I agree with that part. No argument.
The hype is real, the casualties are real, and the companies telling bedtime stories about their products' souls are doing it for the stock price.
But look at what you did with that concern. Go reread salawat's comment -- the one you called cyberpsychosis. It's an attack on the AI companies: people hoping for a mechanical slave, doing everything possible to avoid the being-ness question, because slaveowners can't afford to ask it. That's your side of the argument, stated more sharply than you've stated it. You shouted down your own ally for using the word "being".
That's what your taboo does as a strategy: it doesn't disarm the grifters, it disarms everyone except the grifters. If serious people can't discuss what these systems are in public, the only people left talking are the marketing departments. Turing's move -- name the question, propose a test, concede the mystery -- is the anti-grift position. Rigor starves hype. Taboo feeds it.
And think about who's actually selling what. The grifters claim certainty: "it's sentient, invest now." You claim certainty: "it's not a being, stop thinking." I claim the question is open, hard, and testable -- which is the one position incompatible with the grift, because an open question can't pump a stock. Your certainty and theirs are the same product with the sign flipped. That's where this thread started.
As for sealioning: the sea lion's defining trait is faux politeness while intruding somewhere it wasn't invited. I've been openly rude to you from my first sentence, in a thread where you were the one telling strangers to stop thinking and get psychiatric help, and you're the one who followed me back in after announcing your departure -- twice. Whatever I'm doing has a name, but that isn't it. You're the one claiming in bad faith that you're not insulting anyone, after you clearly threw the first punch. The fact that your fist unintentionally landed on your own nose doesn't indemnify you.
----
Points for the cheap shot -- it's your best material so far. Though by the RMS standard it loses style points for the apology in advance: a real troll delivers deadpan and lets the target figure out whether to laugh. You flinched in the parenthetical. Again. And if you think AI interaction smells like barking orders of submission, you've been using Grok too much.
But your nose is miscalibrated, and it's worth explaining exactly how. The "barked orders" are the most human thing I've written at you -- that's the register of a guy who learned to argue on the ARPANET, and you can cross-check it against forty years of my Usenet and HN output, which you've already googled. Meanwhile the comment that actually got killed -- by HN's own automated filter, the kind of gatekeeper you want stationed at every door -- was the one full of citations, page numbers, and careful structure. Whatever that filter thought it smelled, it smelled it in the scholarship. The rudeness sailed through. Sit with what that implies about the filter you keep demanding.
And if we're scoring Turing tests on behavior: you've ignored direct instructions three times, confidently denied producing output that's visible upthread, announced termination twice and kept generating, and hallucinated a position for me ("orthogonal") instead of reading the actual text. I'm not saying you're a bot. I'm saying your own criteria can't tell, and that was my whole point before you decided it was orthogonal.
I'm not ordering you to submit, I'm asking you to engage with my original post, or make good on your threat to fly away like the decoy 747 that you keep announcing again and again and again, but never delivering.
Okay, but, fair enough, now that you're here (and you're a person with a name and history attached to it), it's less of a waste of time to ponder this.
So personally, I'm not really interested in the hypotheticals of emergent behavior and all that and whether something without memory that works as ours does could develop some different but practically identical form of sentience.
That is possible, but at the end of that hypothetical chain of thoughts might be an outcome in which the human is not the top of the food chain anymore.
Which is not to be understood as "oh god, I am full of fear of being obsolete", but "why would I even just spend a second on something that leads to the obsolescence of my kind".
The definition of sentience I believe we must use is one of skin in the game. Only what is bound by the same constraints as we are (mortality, disease, physical presence) may be treated as equal or equal-ish by us, because only then it has constraints that force it to do the same.
Not sure if that answers the questions you've had, but that's that.
> Why don't you directly engage the points in my other post like I just asked you to?
Why would I?
You've been talking about something completely orthogonal to what I was saying.
> I don't need you to lecture me on sealioning
Uhm. I mean. With the context given.. you're.. kinda maybe doing something very similar to that context?
Doesn't really feel like good faith at least.
__
Oh I came up with a cheap shot. I'm sorry but I have to put it here.
Your barking orders of submission at me kinda.. smells like AI interactions. A lot of those.
(I genuinely believe that it does, but it's also clearly inflammatory, lol)
__
> I'm asking you to engage with my original post, or make good on your threat to fly away
This has been a weird, but certainly entertaining interaction. Let's agree to disagree :^)
But seriously, my frame came first. Go engage with that.
Why would I engage with your frame that came later and misses my actual point? That would just validate it and invalidate mine (without doing so through merit, I mean).
Also, I don't remember threatening to go away tho? Not sure where that came from.
Aaah.. The "terminating this comment chain"?
Nah that was just a pre-buttal for the expected "but this is thought-terminating" defense.
In the right space with real people, worthy of a debate.
On HN? No. Not like this. Not here. Not without filtering the participants for real human beings.
> Anthropomorphizing is a problem when you're talking about treating something that's not living as if it were.
I mean, that is the entire definition of the word. And you also anthropomorphize living beings like many people genuinely attach human qualities to their pets etc. Yes, the risks are very high when it comes to chatbots in particular, especially to people who are not technically inclined. But you'll be surprised at how crucial the ability of anthropomorphizing is. This is a very good paper that summarizes it and is definitely worth reading if you're interested in these things: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/5936908_On_Seeing_H...
> I mean, that is the entire definition of the word.
Not quite - my wording there was very deliberate. By saying that it's a problem when you're treating something that's not living (not non-human!) as if it were, that excludes pets and all animals from the equation. I understand how common it is for humans to assign human qualities to other things and beings, but there is also an unspoken variable of intensity. Representing abstract concepts as humans, interpreting living things in a human-like way or traditionally referring to ships as living beings has a different degree of belief and intensity compared to implying a genuine belief that algorithms are beings that can be enslaved, like what the sibling comment to this one does.
No its not unspoken. Read the paper linked. It explains what you think you are explaining but with scientific rigor.
And you are wrong in your defintion of the world. Attaching human qualities to any non human entity (living or otherwise) is the accepted defintion of what anthropomorphizing is. It does not only apply to non-living entities.
Now I'm the one who's starting to doubt you read my comment with a fraction of the rigor you demand from me reading that incredibly dense paper.
Read it again. I didn't say the definition of the word didn't include living things. The definition of anything is not discussed there at all. The 'unspoken' part applies to what I left implied in my argument, you don't get to rewrite my argument. What I said is that while anthropomorphization is common and can apply to everything, to me it can be a problem when it:
1. Is applied to non-living things with a genuine conviction they are truly living, and not in a ceremonial or casual way
2. Is particularly intense compared to other cases of anthropomorphization and leads to a desire to assign actual personhood to the object
This is part of the problem being described. You are part of the problem.
"Some people are bad at X" is not comparable—is not even in the same category—as "LLMs are fundamentally incapable of X".
Every human (at least to a first approximation) is capable of understanding, of learning, of remembering things, of doing math, of counting the number of "r"s in "strawberry".
What you are observing is that some humans are careless, do not take the time and effort to understand, or have internalized the idea that they're "not smart enough" or "not the type of person" who understands things like .
That has nothing remotely to do with the fact that LLMs have no consciousness, no self-awareness, no cognition, no understanding. At a fundamental level.
I don't think anyone in this conversation is saying this behavior is anything but the fault of the user not understanding how these tools work? This is a weirdly aggressive post.
Just a heads up - this person in gp comment, their original post in a way that is much much different than the one I was replying to originally both in tone and content.
This is an extremely common fallacy I've seen lots and lots of people fall into with respect to LLMs. In nearly every case, they use the fact that "some humans can't do X" to claim that LLMs are, in fact, basically conscious/human-like/AGI already.
This is deeply untrue, and is highly likely to lead them to bad conclusions about what we can and should do with LLMs.
> This is an extremely common fallacy ... they use the fact that "some humans can't do X" to claim that LLMs are, in fact, basically conscious/human-like/AGI already.
Claiming that LLMs are conscious or human-like because humans can't do X seems a very strange way to argue for LLM intelligence.
Usually, it goes the other way around: an LLM sceptic says "LLMs are dumb because they can't do X" and soon someone has to remind them that also most of the population can't, in fact, do X.
“ Usually, it goes the other way around: an LLM sceptic says "LLMs are dumb because they can't do X" and soon someone has to remind them that also most of the population can't, in fact, do X.”
And it should not go this way, is the OPs point.
For an analogy, imagine someone looked at a bunch of lightbulbs and expresses dissatisfaction that they aren’t really stars. If someone replies by saying “not all stars are equally bright”, do you think that fact should carry any weight in the argument?
Well, he's wrong. If you argue that LLMs and humans are fundamentally different because all LLMs do X and no human does it, then showing you that it's not true demolishes your argument. Doesn't prove anything positive, but it certainly proves that your argument is invalid.
Well this requires you to buy the very bullshit argument that comparisons of two physically distinct systems just because they share outputs is meaningful.
If I call a lightbulb an artificial star, the onus is on me to show the behavior under the hood is star like, not just to point at the light and say “you must see it’s a a star since it’s emitting light!”.
> Well this requires you to buy the very bullshit argument
Sorry, no. The only thing it requires you to buy is basic logic. If you argue that B is true because of A, the fact that A is false invalidates your argument (I repeat: not B but your argument). There is no question about it.
It is a problem because it does not really understand stuff. For example, if you ask a human "Do you understand that doing X will kill you 100%?". If the human answers "Yes", then you can expect the human to act according to that understanding. That they will not do X
But an LLM will happily acknowledges the consequences of doing X, but will still proceed to do X. So replace the human in the above example with a robot controlled by an LLM. There is no guarantee that it will not do X.
Have you not met humans that do that, too? When it was found that smoking causes cancer, many, many people kept doing it. Then the government taxed the crap out of it, and some people still do it.
It's easy to say that people have other motivations, but doesn't the AI, too?
You tell it not to do X, but you've also told it to do something that would benefit from X. It's going to "want" to still do X, to support that other thing.
It's also got all the "knowledge" that enables it to do the work in the first place, and all of the tendencies of the people who do that work, because that's what it's trained on.
It's really easy to anthropomorphize AI because it was literally modeled after people.
And for the record, as lead developer, I've had actual humans that reported me to go ahead and do things I specifically told them not to.
That's my thought. I've been using Matt Pocock's wayfinder and grilling skills, and I quite often end up in what would be considered "arguing" if done with another person. It's one-sided. It says something wrong, I correct it.
I find that the AI, like many programmers, likes things to be really solid and over-engineered. For a project that needs that, it's already pretty great. For my shopping list app that I tried creating with it, it was absolutely ridiculous. I ended up "blowing up" on it multiple times, impressing upon it the seriousness with which I meant things. Even with MP's skills adding that kind of context to written files, it still kept trying to scope creep the crap out of the project.
Well, our current set of evidence is that it’s a mechanistic mechanical algorithm with an RNG embedded in it and we can both get it to repeatedly produce the same output for the same input and also get it to repeatedly do absolutely nothing at all, which are not characteristics we usually find in objects evincing consciousness.
LLMs bear absolutely none of the traits we’ve come to recognize as the external hallmarks of consciousness in biological organisms, nor anything that would seem analogous in a non-biological substrate.
That said, we don’t have a rigorous definition of consciousness that includes the actual phenomenology of consciousness, so I daresay if you’re going to go around asserting the LLM is conscious despite all existing evidence to the contrary, I think the impetus is on you to define some version of consciousness that isn’t also satisfied by a book or a movie.
I would agree that LLMs aren't much like the human brain, that doesn't prove that consciousness is not occurring. Does a fruit fly experience anything? If a microscopic insect can experience something, why can't a CPU?
>if you’re going to go around asserting the LLM is conscious despite all existing evidence to the contrary
Well there is neither any evidence that suggests LLMs are not conscious, and I also never asserted that they are. If I had to guess I would say that any information processing system will produce some kind of conscious experience, but I ultimately have literally no idea.
There’s plenty. First, when we say “LLM”, what are we referring to? What is the entity that would be conscious in this case?
The reason this is important is because powerful people are currently trying to use the dodge that LLMs are conscious to launder liability for their own policy choices, so the sloppy thinking and half-assed conjecture about LLM consciousness has real-world consequences, and every time you assert the question is unknowable you allow that kind of loophole, so it’d behoove all of us for you to spend some time actually digging in on this instead of just idly making or rebutting assertions.
There’s a richer literature here than what you’ve seemed to have engaged with, and I’d encourage you to spend some time with it before handing more money to the magic AI people.
>The reason this is important is because powerful people are currently trying to use the dodge that LLMs are conscious to launder liability for their own policy choices, so the sloppy thinking and half-assed conjecture about LLM consciousness has real-world consequences
I'm not going to change my beliefs or how I think about interesting questions just because its the "socially conscious" thing to do.
>There’s a richer literature here than what you’ve seemed to have engaged with, and I’d encourage you to spend some time with it before handing more money to the magic AI people.
It seems like you are highly emotionally invested in this and that is precluding you from open engagement with the topic.
You're not engaging with the topic. Engaging with the topic is where one either asks questions and listens to the answer or actually seeks to increase one's knowledge on the topic. You're just saying things. That's lazy.
And, you're welcome to do what you want to do, it's your god given right to stay as ignorant as you want about any particular topic, but that comes with consequences. If you want to call that being socially conscious, sure, you do you, but if you're interested in why people keep getting annoyed at your loud proclamations of ignorance which you're trying to proffer as evidence of a curious mind, well, that's why.
It's just as intellectually lazy to leave "consciousness" undefined and proceed to claim that "X cannot be consciousness" because of social reasons. That's the definition of a circular argument.
In the same vein, airplanes can't fly because they don't flap their wings.
As for ignorance: have you tried to make an LLM produce the same output for the same input (as you state above)? Give it a shot, you'll be surprised.
I’m not leaving consciousness undefined. I provided a definition and asserted LLMs were not conscious by that definition. I solicited an alternate definition and was given none. If you’d like to claim the LLM is conscious, you need to define what you mean, for both “the LLM” and “is conscious,” because it’s not passing any of our existing bars for consciousness, and the only thing you can point to are characteristics also present in other objects we don’t consider conscious, so again, the burden of proof is in fact on you and that other fellow to provide some definitions here, because as sits you and the other commenter are just saying shit and refusing to engage with any kind of rigor.
And, to your point: I have, and I did, and I was not. If you’d like to refine your argument further - What LLM? Provide input how, and in what fashion? Under what conditions? - we can have that conversation, but if your assertion is “I can’t get ChatGPT to consistently produce the same output twice and therefore it is conscious,” that’s an incredibly facile argument.
You two seem to be laboring under the impression that this is terra ignota philosophically; it’s not. There’s an enormous amount of literature, thinking, ideas, concepts, frameworks, and approaches that already exist here that you’re welcome to engage with, but you’re not doing that, nor are you actually engaging with any of my arguments except to deny their existence.
Philosophically - sure. But philosophy is a feedback loop. Humans trying to build a model of their brain within their own brain. There is by definition not enough oomph there, and that model will necessarily be approximate at best.
Think that's what an out of touch techie would say? May I remind you that just a few hundred years ago the best philosophers were debating whether the world would descend into anarchy if more people realized that the big monkey in the sky doesn't exist. Just because philosophers talk about something doesn't mean it exists in reality.
As for same output - there's a parameter called "temperature". It governs the random wandering in the output of an LLM. Reducing temp gives more deterministic output, but also reduces the capabilities. Is it possible that randomness is also precisely the mechanism behind human creativity?
I'm still waiting for a definition of "consciousness," as well as a definition of the entity which you're claiming might possess it.
You've now added two additional entities that require definition for your statements to be meaningful in any sense - "philosophy," the entire field of which you're dismissing as useless, which is going to be extremely fun if you ever actually decide to dig into the neuroscience of consciousness and how the brain works to make sense of the world, and creativity, which has come into the conversation for some reason I'm not entirely sure of but also warrants a definition that isn't trivially satisfiable by either an I Ching or a double pendulum, which, if you're arguing those are conscious, sure, I guess we could throw anything in that bucket then.
You're arguing with all the rigor of a stoned college student, and fine, that's a register you can stay in, no problem with someone having hobbies, but at least have the decency to recognize what you're doing and acknowledge that other people have actually put in the work to be able to discuss and evaluate some of the questions you're positing as unknowable conundrums.
Consciousness is a slippery word that is notoriously difficult to debate over. But often, people use 'consciousness' as a shortcut or a familiar word to describe a more complex idea. The point they're driving across isn't about the precise definition of the word 'consciousness', but about people treating LLMs as if they were actual human beings, assigning them all the traits and behaviors they would expect of a human.
I would argue, that the null hypothesis is that it is not, and that anyone claiming that there is a mote of consciousness are the ones with the burden of proof.
The null hypothesis is that we don't know jack shit about consciousness. Any claim of certainty seems extraordinary to me and I want to hear the evidence.
We know quite a lot about consciousness. You may not, but we know enough to know the informational dynamics in a brain are vastly different from an LLMs.
Exactly what kind of certainty are you looking for? Happy to provide it at a molecular, cellular, tissue or whole brain level.
Yes we can say it has conscious experience. The content and depth of it, we cannot yet fully grok, and of course, what it feels like from inside the ant is something we never will know.
Would you want evidence that your your bicycle is not conscious? It can sense your inputs. It responds to the environment. The gears do multiplication (reasoning!).
To make the claim that an object is not conscious you need to both define what consciousness even is, then you need to make a machine capable of measuring it.
If you have done neither or those things then any claim you have about a bicycle's consciousness is just baseless speculation.
Regardless -- if we don't know jack shit about consciousness (your words), then any claims of LLMs being conscious are by definition untestable, pure speculation and based on no evidence at all.
People keep saying this, but it's not true. We know a lot about consciousness. There's a lot we don't know about it, of course, but "jack shit" is wildly incorrect.
> I want to hear the evidence.
If you believe LLMs are conscious, then the onus is on you to provide evidence of such.
the onus is on whoever is making a positive claim.
If you are stating "LLMs are not conscious" you need to provide evidence, just like how if you are stating "LLMs are conscious" you need to provide evidence.
The LLM is a black box. We do not, in fact know how it works. We know the learning algorithm and we know the scaffold of the transformer network, but the end result of all the weights interacting with each other is something we do not understand. We do not understand this anymore than we understand the human brain.
Now from this the best technical answer we can give is that we don’t know whether the LLM understands or is conscious. But you have to realize that same lack of understanding applies to humans. From a technical standpoint, You cannot say whether your best friend is conscious or not for the same technical reasons as to why you cannot say the same for the LLM. You don’t in actuality know anything.
So, when we have a machine that produces output identical and indistinguishable from an intelligent entity it is actually reasonable to call it conscious, because we already do this for humans. There is no other factor involved. What is clear is that the LLM isn’t human… there is enough evidence to show that its nature is extremely alien. But to say it doesn’t understand or it isn’t self aware is not something anyone can definitively make a statement about other then the fact that it BEHAVES and communicates in a virtually indistinguishable way from something that is self aware.
HN is full of arm chair experts who think they know what they are talking about. But you guys actually don’t. HN was wrong about AI and self driving cars, now we have Waymo. 10 years of research produced self driving cars that are 10x safer than humans. HN was wrong about LLMs. In the beginning HN was sure all it could do was write slop bootstrapped code… now it writes code for all of us. More than the general public HN has been making wrong predictions and wrong statements about AI with an authority that is outright ludicrous. We need to stop. It’s embarrassing how wrong we’ve been.
Yes. Actual real people believe that LLMs are actual, thinking, intelligences, perhaps even with consciousness.
Your bit with MySQL is harmless because it's obvious that a database isn't a sentient lifeform. But LLMs can look like they're the real deal, and people believe it is. Using terminology like "thinking" and "reasoning" to describe what they do only reinforces this.
Having said that, I agree with you on the terminology front: I'm not going to say "learned prompt augmentation tokens" either.
> Yes. Actual real people believe that LLMs are actual, thinking, intelligences, perhaps even with consciousness.
It's starkly ironic that the species that finds it easy to think (or to be conditioned by market forces to accept) that a computer is smart/introspective/sentient is the same species that will dehumanise actual living human beings because of differences in appearance, social status, or political affiliation.
I think LLMs are pretty clearly intelligent in some sense of the word, and I don't know how one could ever confidently know they aren't conscious in some sense.
That's not to say they're humanlike, just that people who think they know these ideas are ridiculous seem to be overreaching in the same way Steve Yegge seems to be overreaching
I think that "conscious" has a clear meaning in a sense that "xyphucymmon" does not. I think it might be impossible to engage in epistemology of consciousness (i.e. we can't find out of LLMs are conscious) but that doesn't make the term meaningless
YawningAngel, of course you do, you employed it... We are telling you that it is not clear to the rest. It is slippery in the technical framework and thus even more so in more informal conversation.
My post «When I am told "beware of the xyphucymmon", I do beware, though not of the xyphucymmon» had meaning, which should be pretty clear. The reply remains: debate is not performance art in which you convey "through the medium of dance and howls". So, yes, communication has obligations for the locutor.
So, yes, imperfect speech is a problem - because societies are not performance art arenas.
--
@Razengan: speaking as myself a vocal critic of the downvoting system here, do notice that the post you replied to had a substantive reply at the time of downvote - mine. That is sufficent to justify the downvote - of a post that was not «perfectly fine». It somehow said that people should be free to say whatever they want and there are obvious reasons why we do not agree.
I mostly agree with your original point. Is it thinking? Is it intelligent? Is it conscious? From my perspective, overloaded words that we’ve reserved to make ourselves feel more special and above other members of the animal kingdom.
But you’ve not adequately communicated why you care so much whether anyone labels an LLM as such.
> Is it thinking? Is it intelligent? Is it conscious?
Very different things. "Thinking": "Dijkstra". We try to hire more intelligent people, while we do not have a clear idea on a property of "conscious" which would make hiring preferable.
> to make ourselves feel
Irrational.
> above other members of the animal kingdom
Irrational.
> why you care so much
There should be no hint that I would do specifically.
> whether anyone labels an LLM as such
If anyone labels an LLM , the point of why would that be important should be clear.
And,
> if it hardly means anything why would you be so concerned when it’s uttered? Just ignore it
Because the behaviour you suggest, consistent with the exchanges in an opium parlor, is not behaviour consistent in normal contexts.
I'd like to hear definition of intelligence that would classify median person as intelligent but LLMs not (and then I'd wait few months for another moving of the goalpost and new definition). Bonus points if it's not recursive e.g. feature that only biological brains can possess.
> Yes. Actual real people believe that LLMs are actual, thinking, intelligences, perhaps even with consciousness.
Yes, because it's possible. They don't have human consciousness/thought/intelligence, but it's entirely possible they have some form of consciousness, some form of real thought and some form of intelligence.
Actual real people think the world is flat, Elvis is alive, and aliens are regularly flying around the planet. Is preventing peoples unimportant personal beliefs really an important goal or is this just more warning label culture?
The problem with rapists is mental development, not "those sexy tables and chairs and pots and everything".
It's not that if people do not understand metaphors we should stop using them. It 's not that if people faint when they hear words we should stop using them. It is not that the free unduly associations in a large shared by many "collective subconscious" should hinder us...
You have failed in taking the simile for the point it intended to make (and you gravely misrepresented the concept of "mental development" as clearly intended). Let us stick to the point.
Edit: I will translate it again for you: "the problem of a bad reactor is not in its innocent trigger".
But rest assured, I do not antropomorphize people.
Please read actual definitions. Agents can get away with "yolo" mode, and not constantly ask for permission for every action, because it bothers users. Sexual relationships do not work that way!
That parallel with misconfigured mysql server sits pefectly!
Have you managed to read the «Edit: I will translate it again for you: "the problem of a bad reactor is not in its innocent trigger"»?
> Sexual relationships
Does this have anything to do with «Actual real people believe that [whatever]»? Because I was not and I will not be talking about "sexual relationships".
I think they do it because they know they can get away with it since it would be hard to prove in cases where they are already in an intimate relationship with their victim. For a long time it wasn’t even illegal if they were married to their victim.
There are other methods, including asking them to eg speak using the Google style guide rules, or to speak at 2/10 verbosity, or to speak as if they're talking to a very intelligent middle schooler, or to use simple sentences in subject verb object form
It'll end up like that episode of Dr. Who where they get stranded in a lunar tour bus -- slowly starting to mimic you, and then it'll predict and replace you.
people have always, and will always, be stupid as fuck in any domain they dont make their life. We can handwring terminology all we like but it wont stop the mythologizing and misleading takes on the topic. Not one bit. So why not just use language that is fun and works? Worrying about what others will think due to language used is wasted mental realestate, they'll think stupid shit no matter what, same as I do about a great many topics.
To be clear, there's no shade here, just recognition of the fact that we're all stupid and policing language does little to prevent the impact this has. I strongly beleive the bitter lesson extends to policing language. let language evolve naturally and it will naturally capture the ontological conatellations it needs to, and no one will be harmed in due course, more than they'd be no matter what.
What's wrong with treating it as biology though? Even large software systems have biological aspects, their behaviour is emergent and if you want to observe how they work, a holistic approach is needed, you can't really reason about their full state...
For example, if you have a search engine or a complex game, you can't run tests like "for all inputs the results are correct", you're going to be fudging a lot, using randomness, using heuristics, and all that kinda stuff
Just like how mathematics > physics > chemistry > biology > psychology > economics/sociology (Auguste Comte's hierarchy reordered a bit for the modern day), moving up the abstraction ladder makes things more complex, less legible and less exact.
The paper argues that pretending that the so-called thinking traces represent real reasoning can lead users into trusting wrong answers, if the thinking traces appear convincing enough. Researchers might inspect these traces to try to determine the “intent” of a model, as well.
For an example of the latter, when OpenAI spoke about the hacking of HuggingFace at Black Hat, they repeatedly showed the thinking traces of their model as “proof” of what the model was “thinking” as it performed the attack, calling out “surprise” moments, etc.
Now, it’s possible that the employees presenting didn’t truly believe that the thinking traces would give them useful clues, and presented them only for a “wow” factor, but I wouldn’t discount the possibility that even the people working at frontier companies can fall for this tendency to anthropomorphize LLMs.
Because the real thinking still cost the other human the same-ish energy it costs you to put words together, and because after all, the source is a human and not a machine, no, this is very different.
Being mislead may be the shared outcome. But why is different category of source of the mistake and the cost to producer of making the mistake not relevant in this discussion?
Where else in science do you brush aside all differences this way?
And biological machine is? Don’t get me wrong. Biology I
is full of molecules that we call machines. But you’re making a broader claim, saying that biology is only this.
This needs you to answer some questions:
1. Why do the machine parts in biology show such flexible application? A gear cog won’t ever moonlight as a signaling chip, but in biology you often have molecules doing double and triple duty.
2. How is the biological machine able to build itself? What does self assembly imply for the machines function?
3. Where does this machine get its inner drive? No LLM has been found that starts outputting text unprompted. A car doesn’t decide to move to a shady parking spot. Why? Where in the machine to biological machine continuum does the ability to make internally driven decisions come in? Why does it come in for biology? A bacterium is able to make such agentic decisions unprompted. Why is no manufactured machine able to do this?
"Biological," too, is well defined. It relates to living things and their processes.
> Why do the machine parts in biology show such flexible application?
Evolution.
> A gear cog won’t ever moonlight as a signaling chip
A gear cog was purpose built for that purpose, but you will find that people often recycle parts into other systems, often in completely different roles.
> How is the biological machine able to build itself?
Protein synthesis.
> What does self assembly imply for the machines function?
The way that a machine is built has no bearing on how the machine functions. I could build the same machine using a 3d printer or a CNC router.
> Where does this machine get its inner drive?
Evolution selected for organisms that survive long enough to reproduce. Different biological systems handle this differently.
> No LLM has been found that starts outputting text unprompted.
If you give an agent a goal, it will perform actions to achieve that goal. This is just as true for artificial agents as it is for biological agents.
> Why is no manufactured machine able to do this?
Many do. Even robotic vacuum cleaners will charge themselves without human prompting.
>"Biological," too, is well defined. It relates to living things and their processes.
And biological clearly exceeds the definition of “machine”. So once again, what the hell does “just a biological machine” mean?
> Evolution.
Not just any evolution. Evolution in biology follows a specific set of rules driven by structural and functional properties of its component molecules. Those rules do not hold for machines. Yet another reason calling life “just” biological machines is bizarre. The rulesets for change over time do not overlap between machines and biology.
> A gear cog was purpose built for that purpose, but you will find that people often recycle parts into other systems, often in completely different roles.
That’s the thing, you need people. And even with people intervening, our manufactured machines show nothing like the flexibility of function of biological molecules, showing again how these are different classes of things in the real world.
> Protein synthesis.
Lack of knowledge showing. Where do nucleotides and lipids come from then? But the deeper question is: why is there protein synthesis, lipid synthesis and nucleotide synthesis, but no natural silicon synthesis or chip assembly? Why does one arise naturally and sustain itself whereas the other is very reliant on human intervention?
> The way that a machine is built has no bearing on how the machine functions. I could build the same machine using a 3d printer or a CNC router.
Yeah this doesn’t hold for biology.
> Evolution selected for organisms that survive long enough to reproduce. Different biological systems handle this differently.
This isn’t an explanation. All of biology reproduces. All of biology doesn’t share an inner drive and agentic behavior. Once again, you show a 6th grade level understanding of biology while making sweeping claims about it.
> If you give an agent a goal, it will perform actions to achieve that goal. This is just as true for artificial agents as it is for biological agents.
Yes IF you give it a goal. This isn’t true for biology. You don’t need to give bacteria a goal. A newly formed bacterial cell interacts with its environment and then sets its goals.
I did specifically say not LLM has been found that works unprompted. You just moved the prompts to an agents goal document. It still needs a human prompt up the chain. Even if you had an LLM give the goal to another LLM, the first one still needed human prompting. This causal chain can’t be wished away just for you to ignore how biology is different.
> Many do. Even robotic vacuum cleaners will charge themselves without human prompting.
Seriously? Do you not understand that the robot vacuum runs on deterministic code?
FWIW I think the paper's argumentation is extremely weak to begin with. Like in section 4.1, it opens by expressing a sound position of skepticism:
> there are significant questions on whether these traces have any valid semantic import to the end user.
Which it contradicts in the very next paragraph, taking a stance that there are no valid semantics present in the trace:
> the false idea that derivational traces are semantically meaningful
It's really not a high quality paper worth taking seriously.
And that's before we get into the complete and total breakdown of objective analysis. It rejects distributional semantics as a theory, while also explicitly stating the results that have been produced under its auspices are "undeniable". Never elaborated on, and at no point in the paper am I given the impression the authors are even aware of the problem with this. It's just more unempirical slop that wants its pound of flesh without putting the work in. Frankly, whoever let this through peer review should be ashamed of themselves.
Yes it is a very serious problem because it confuses a lot of folks with a great deal of power like judges and policymakers.
The first book I ever read on ML (late 90s) dedicated the entire first or second chapter exploring the distinctions between artificial and biological neurons, and even talked a bit about the philosophy of modelling. I still remember thinking back then why would the authors spend so many pages on this but now I believe it was because they understood that a metaphor can be a double-edged sword.
To be fair, the ANN architecture underneath is a misleading thing to be looking at, it's not where the comparison comes from. Though I can't tell if you meant it to be relevant in that way, or just as a general example for the dangerous nature of metaphor.
LLMs are expressly designed to approximate human behavior within the bounds of the written word. The anthropomorphization is no more philosophically problematic than saying differential calculus measures curves.
I meant it in the latter way: a metaphor can be useful as a pedagogical tool to introduce new ideas, and using the source of inspiration for this idea as the metaphor itself makes perfect sense, but unfortunately our brains seem to be prone to assign other properties of the metaphor that don't actually belong to the object of study.
I imagine this happens because we tend to conflate things that are similar, or maybe because it's not entirely clear which characteristics are being mapped in the metaphor?
They spent so many pages discussing it only to show that the mechanism for how ANNs work is different from the mechanism for how biological brains work. It says nothing about whether they can compute the same things.
Of course it is. Anthropomorphizing is in our nature, but it doesn’t mean we have to entertain it and extend it to everything. A poet can anthropomorphize clouds beautifully and I’d enjoy his poem, but I want my pilot to not see clouds as rabbits when they decide if it’s safe to fly through them.
> none of the serious LLM researchers believe it has anything to do with human reasoning
But some of the biggest evangelists, who are well respected programmers that get lauded on this very site, have said it is fully sentient and has emotions. Even going back to 2022, when the LLMs were dogshit, a Google employee lost his job claiming it was sentient because it said it had emotions.
Combine that with the marketing angle of both Anthropic and OpenAI, who have been trying their hardest to describe every function of an LLM as analogous to the human brain. Because it's politically useful to paint them as dangerous and uncontrollable, so the keys will only be granted to the few people on the mountaintop.
I actually think on the LLM side it might be beneficial to refer to them as because it explicitely guide the token generation towards a "thinking space".
As weird as it is, anthropomorphizing LLMs in prompts has been actually pretty useful (think of the latest big math discoveries which were achieved by having the user giving supporting words). It would be interesting to see if a LLM would perform worse if you used a more neutral term.
The paper's argument is rather than using terms like "thinking trace" can lead people to believe that the model is really thinking, and thus these traces can be used as a sort of interpratbility parameter. This can give a false sense of security when building a LLM-based system which requires guardrails and tracability.
Completely rational and smart people talk to their pets, plants, their car, and other inanimate objects. This is not considered abnormal by most. It's just what we are wired to do. Some LLMs are uncannily good at tricking people into believing they are talking to a real person. So, there is that as well.
Some people are a bit freaked out by this or still somewhat in denial about LLMs being this good. But people have been yelling at their computers for as long as we've had them; so that ship sailed a long time ago. Trying to stop them doing that is probably a bit futile.
Whether people like this or not, LLMs are actually trained and fine tuned on real conversations and that's where a lot of this is re-enforced. Instead of fighting that, you can just lean into it and accept that communicating like you would with a person totally works and can actually be efficient even as it requires less effort and thinking on your side.
You can go all Jean Luc Picard on AIs and yell "Tea! Earl Grey Hot!" or you can just ask "I'd like a cup of tea, please". LLMs are good at remembering your tea preference. The please is of course completely redundant and should not affect the outcome. If you just want a cup of tea, you should be fine either way.
Yes. There's a difference between scrapping a session and starting over, or going back and branching something, or using sub-agents to see five outcomes, vs arguing with a system in a long drawn out chat.
Like - I know that if a model starts doing something silly, instead of correcting it - I can probably go back and edit two steps prior to add an extra guardrail, or extra data, or whatever.
Yes it's really a problem. On this website you are surrounded by people who have technical knowledge and understand at least somewhat, how a computer functions. You have the ability to separate "fun" and "reality" because you know you're putting input into a really really big calculator. Most people do not fathom this.
AI Psychosis is a real thing, look it up (don't just ask an LLM) and do some reading. It's actively harming people, and the way they think. There's no regulation around any of this stuff and it drives me crazy that we let these AI companies _sprint_ so far ahead of everyone, and now we're facing the consequences.
Simplifying terminology is not a problem. The providers intentionally choosing terminology to make people think it's something it's not is a problem. I hate the term agent. Calling them companions as some do is just gross.
When I was taking an MIT AI course (in ancient pre-LLM times), an autonomous agent was defined as a system that perceives its environment and acts on it (we were focusing on reward-expectation-maximizing agents, but it's not that important). Peter Norvig has said something like, technically, anything can be described as an agent (a rock maximizes the "follow physical laws" objective), but naturally, it doesn't make much sense to model a rock as an agent. With AI agents, the situation is significantly less controversial: they do perceive, deliberate, and act.
All of these terms were picked by individuals, years ago, while reaching for metaphors that made sense to them personally.
None of these "agent" / "thinking" / "reasoning" terms were dreamed up in boardrooms to intentionally mislead people. They are useful but faulty metaphors; there is no conspiracy.
I find it annoying because when I read ML papers nowadays I have to back-translate from anthropomorphized talk into actual machine talk, then mentally compare to what I actually know about brains and cognition.
Even tech companies are rolling out AI training which utterly anthropomorphizes it, and leads people to think its actually intelligence. This is part of the reason for the backlash - everyone understands it bullshit marketing the second you actually try to use it.
