Hacker News Reader

Comment by kelnos | Hacker News Reader

> Is anthropomorphizing a real problem?

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.

View on HN

> 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

What do you mean by consciousness here? Ie in what way do you think LLMs are conscious?

> conscious

The problem with that term is that it is hardly meaningful. Why would you use it? It does not add much, and no clarity, to what it is attributed to.

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

> I think that... has a clear meaning

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.

And on the flip side if it hardly means anything why would you be so concerned when it’s uttered? Just ignore it

> why would you be so concerned when it’s uttered

When I am told "beware of the xyphucymmon", I do beware, though not of the xyphucymmon.

And this means nothing, yet I’m not complaining endlessly about it on social media, or harassing my coworkers about it. Curious

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 <whatever>, 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.

I wouldn't classify the median human as intelligent.

> 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 believe

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...

These discussions take a lot of time to get to the crux because neither side states their assumptions. Assumptions rarely get voiced at all.

I find it useful to ask:

1. Do you believe in quantum consciousness?

2. Do you think a "brain upload", a high-accuracy digital model of an organic human brain, would think or be conscious?

3. What is your working definition of thinking? It doesn't need to be rigorous.

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?

I think it was Karpathy that suggested he preferred “simulated reasoning” but sadly it didn’t catch on.

I dunno, sometimes I encounter humans who lack actual, thinking, intelligence, perhaps even consciousness. I still treat them like people.

To quote Sarah Constantin:

> Humans Who Are Not Concentrating Are Not General Intelligences^

But yeah, you should still treat them with humanity. (Related: you should treat LLMs well, not because they're human but because you are^^)

^ https://srconstantin.github.io/2019/02/25/humans-who-are-not...

^^ hmm couldn't find this tweet but didn't look too hard

I gotta say though, turning on caps lock does seem to get them to cut out the inane banter.

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

My favorite - reply like I do, review my previous messages to understand my tone and verbosity. As much as needed, as little as possible

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.

Actual real people believe that people are actual, thinking, intelligences, perhaps even with consciousness.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com