Claude predicts the next token of the predominantly human training input, and humans use "I".
Nice attempt at a “aha, gotcha!” comment, but sadly you’re too off-mark for it to work.
> Claude predicts the next token of the predominantly human training input, and humans use "I".
This is inconsequential. It could very well be programmed to not assume such a personified stance, and yet here we are. Nothing you do makes it drop this ridiculous facade. It’s intentional, not a byproduct.
I could ask you the same. Are you trying to say AIs cannot be made to prefer behaving in certain ways? Because if so, I’ve got a bridge to sell you.
On it's own a model is just an inert set of data structures.
Also you're totally missing the point. the parent poster's account (with the gibberish name) was minutes old at the time of my post.
Now we have this software that's specifically designed to mimic humans, and mistaking it for real intelligence or consciousness can easily be disastrous. It's very important that we not anthropomorphize it, but we are catastrophically bad at NOT doing that.
Even our language has had a lot of computer anthropomorphism baked into it ("my phone died!", "this laptop is fussy", "the computer is sleeping", "it's thinking"), and it's not easy to excise that routine anthropomorphism from the way we talk about LLMs.
I don't want an LLM to write as if it were a person because it's definitely easier and more reliable to cut that problem off at the root, as much as possible, rather than to just try to willpower my way out of my human tendency to anthropomorphize inanimate objects.
I'll grant that LLMs talk like this because they're trained on human writing. It may not be possible to get them to not do that. But if it can't be fixed, it's just another thing to put on the "reasons this is all an incredibly stupid idea" pile.
You seem to have something against the clankers getting all uppity. And you are welcome to your opinion on whether we have some moral obligation to be nice to them. But if you can solve a real problem with a tool. Is it worth your time to complain about semantics?
Do you get upset when your screwdriver is the wrong color, or has branding that isn’t quite your aesthetic?
If Claude uses I to refer to itself, do you start philosophical arguments with it?
Mildly related tangent. Fable started using my first name today and plastered it all over my docs. “Peddling said this, so based on that I did this.” That did bother me. I told it to just generically call me the user or human. Maybe I’m a bit of a hypocrite here?
Even if it was instructed to write as if it were a robot -- it would ultimately be outputting what is statistically most likely for a human mimicking a robot, based on the training corpus.
It is all ultimately a statistical predictor of the input material.
I'm fine with conversational interfaces using "I". It makes the grammar easier and more clear.
Strong emphasis here on conversational interfaces. I don't want a compiler to say "I ran into an error" or my printer to say "I'm low on paper".
Do you need to point out the finder of the issues? Easy.
“Tool x ran for x amount of time and surfaced these issues…” “Parsing x code surfaced these issues.”
I don’t understand why are people pretending like the English language is incapable of transmitting information without personal pronouns when every program under the sun has always been written to interface with humans in a cold, detached, straight-to-the-point and impersonal way.
Finder doesn’t ask you “I see you want ME to delete these files. Want ME to do that for you?”. Toolbars don’t feature “Create a new file for me” options, terminal utilities don’t report back with “I’ve pattern matched the text you input and here’s the results I’ve found”.
Then again, I just dont have an issue with the 'I-isms'; it's a bit weird sure, but at the same time it's a bit more pleasant to interact with as well. After all it is trying to model itself as a person you're talking to.
And it's not that English is incapable of it, but I just think when using a conversational interface, the AI using "I" just comes off as more natural.
"I" is normally used for everything. You could be writing from the perspective of a slab of concrete and you'd use "I".
Finder doesn’t ask “Do you want ME to delete this file?”. Photoshop doesn’t ask “Do you want ME to save this file?”. Claude shouldn’t assume itself to be a person either.
> You could be writing from the perspective of a slab of concrete and you'd use "I".
Except this isn’t prose. Claude is not telling me a story from the point of view of a concrete slab. It is assuming personality to present objective facts. If my entire operating system can be interfaced with without it referring to itself as “I” then so can Claude.
But I don't think I share your preference either. It's a lot easier to talk about what I decided to do and what the machine 'decided' to do if we attach pronouns. "X was changed" can be too vague.
At this point you’re just arguing semantics for the sake of it. You know damn well what I mean and if you need more proof that it is perfectly possible and not at all unreasonable to want this just look at most software around you. None them talk like they are a person and those that do are often the most obnoxious and painful to use.
I do. And I said to that "Yeah okay". No argument, chill out.
The rest of that line wasn't diagreement, it was explaining why your original comment was confusing.
> None them talk like they are a person
Which I explained with the rest of my post. They're all doing what I ask or automated tasks in a far simpler way. It's almost never unclear whether I did something or my OS did something. But when talking to an AI coding assistant that gets muddy very fast when pronouns are avoided.
Impersonating a human does nothing to help it solve problems faster, quite the contrary in fact, it has to waste even more time coming up with human-like speech patterns to present the work done.
It shouldn’t assume any personality unless I explicitly tell it to. It is a tool until I tell it otherwise.
Might want to rethink your statement after going again through what it does exactly. No need to sound more human. but it gives more tokens to "think" like a human committing brain-time to a problem would
English has no distinct personal pronoun for an "it". "I" has to be used for grammar to be attributive. There's quite literally no alternative without using passive voice for everything, which is miserable to read and creates ambiguity on if the speaker (it) did something or something happened to have been done, which then requires entire sentences to clarify.
You aren't stupid, you know what it means when it says "I". And it serves a grammatical purpose. You're getting upset at a toaster for ringing a bell to notify the toast is done. "Toasters aren't bell ringers!?"
Why would you ever think I don’t know personal pronouns serve grammatical purpose? How did you even arrive at that topic? You seem to be missing the point entirely, and I believe quite on purpose given your snarky childish opener.
Entire operating systems stay clear from assuming personality when presenting information or performing actions. Not a single dialogue in my OS refers to itself as “I” when carrying out instructions and reporting back. Why should Claude do it when I don’t want it to and it doesn’t NEED to do so? Why am I not empowered to simply tell it to stop doing that and it obeys? Better yet, why are you thinking yourself on such high horse about this?
> You're getting upset at a toaster for ringing a bell to notify the toast is done. "Toasters aren't bell ringers!?"
If my toaster starts referring to itself as a person, calling out “I made your toast!!” I’ll get mad at it too. I don’t want it to talk or refer to itself as a person. But then again this is not about toasters. This is about AIs being deliberately designed to sound human-like so marketing can lean on the “I” bit of “AI” more heavily and make gullible people think this steroidal information aggregator actually possess the capacity to think and reason, and, consequently, drive sales.
But then again I’d venture a guess that you’re fully aware of all of this, given your opening snidey remark, and are purposefully choosing to be contrarian to be the point of going off on tangents that make 0 sense or have no impact in the discussion whatsoever.
Still, just goes to show how effective this whole thing is in tricking people into thinking it is normal for a tool to think itself a person.
Ignorance, bliss, and all that.