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
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.
When I am told "beware of the xyphucymmon", I do beware, though not of the xyphucymmon.
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.
But you’ve not adequately communicated why you care so much whether anyone labels an LLM as such.
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.
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.