> The anthropomorphization of LLMs should be discouraged as much as possible.
And yet, they have extensive human-like behavior. If you treat them nicely or encourage them, they perform better.
Ignoring that human-like behavior is wrong headed.
And yet, they have extensive human-like behavior. If you treat them nicely or encourage them, they perform better.
Ignoring that human-like behavior is wrong headed.
Well... We can hypothesize that these things are largely trained on internet dialogue so there's probably some correlation between threads where people are not flaming each other and the quality of the replies. They're just statistical engines so anything you can do to raise the odds of a helpful next token...
I'm essentially just making shit up here, maybe it's right, maybe it isn't, but rather than saying "it's human and we should treat it so" we're trying to get to the ground truth of how it works.
Sheesh. Yes, I agree with you entirely. I'm merely pointing out that ignoring this behavior is dumb, too.
And probably not rationally based. Leads people to make crazy jumps. :)
The philosophers who study these things have been clear for a long time - we can never know what it feels like to be in a digital brain. Or any brain for that matter. When push comes to shove we all might be phantoms in some guy's dream.
Don't know + can't know. I think that was the real point of the Turing test. Not: this means it's conscious. Just: this is the best we can ever hope to do.
I asked it for the weather. "I don't know that. I'm just a programmer."
I added "believe in yourself, you can do anything" to sysprompt, suddenly it had the confidence to Google the weather...
https://www.anthropic.com/research/riemann-zeta
“Throughout this process, Jarred's input was mostly limited to sending Claude messages of encouragement (mostly variants of “keep going” or “believe in yourself”).2 This seems to have helped Claude overcome some initial skepticism that it could make meaningful progress.”