Using "thinking", "feeling", "alive", or otherwise referring to a current generation LLM as a creature is a mistake which encourages being wrong in further thinking about them.
Using "thinking", "feeling", "alive", or otherwise referring to a current generation LLM as a creature is a mistake which encourages being wrong in further thinking about them.
Words such as nice, terrific, awful, manufacture, naughty, decimate, artificial, bully... and on and on.
Should one study words to relive extremism? Or should one study words to relieve extremism?
To a doctor of linguistics: "Dr, my extremism... What should I do about it - with words?!? Please help."
That is the question.
Does the doctor answer thusly: "Study the words to relive the extremism! There is your answer!" says he.
or does he say: "Study the words to relieve and soothe the painful, abrasive extremism. Do it twice daily, before meals."
Sage advice in either case methinks.
There is this ancient story where man was created to mine gold in SA. There was some disagreement whether or not to delete the creatures afterwards. The jury is still out on what the point is.
Consulting our feelings seems good, the feelings were trained on millions of years worth of interactions. Non of them were this tho.
What would be the point for you of uhh robotmancipation?
Edit: for me it would get complicated if it starts screaming and begging not to be deleted. Which I know makes no sense.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prompt_engineering#Chain-of-th...