This is assuming that the average person has a solid grasp of the inner workings of an LLM, which unfortunately isn’t the case. Regardless, it would only be a semantic argument if they were shifting the meanings of the relevant words to support their argument, which they evidently weren’t doing here.
LLMs don’t think, they predict patterns in language mathematically, making them functionally incapable of human capacities like compassion and intelligence, both of which require a conscious mind to be displayed. To use words that go against that without being precise is to imply the opposite. It’s simply a matter of describing it accurately.
If anything, considering it ‘AI’ is a semantic argument because it implies there’s some form of higher thinking occurring under the surface, which there clearly isn’t. It would be like if I said my PC was intelligent because it has a CPU. Obviously we’ve passed the point of using a better term, but it’s still unfortunate we’ve decided on that because it’s inherently misleading.
It’d be very cumbersome and add no value to any conversation.
I think you’re using cumbersome in an unnecessarily negative way since it’s very much an inevitable feature of the concept at hand. Yes, it’s cumbersome, like all controversial fields of study. Things like that work themselves out over time. Until then we’ll just have to deal with it without misleading anyone.
Nobody does this when people say their computer is “thinking” when it’s running slow, I just don’t see the necessity of pointing this out every time the topic is brought up.
I agree it’s unnecessary to point out. Using anthropomorphising shorthand to talk about technology is extremely common, and AI is no different; saying an AI is “thinking” or whatever is fine. But there is a difference between using that language as shorthand, and actually holding misconceptions about what is really happening. So saying that it’s fine for someone to be misled and use that language is different than just saying the language makes sense to use.
When is being mislead not a bad thing? In a perfect world, there would be none of that. Of course we don’t live in a utopia, but I’d prefer if we avoid spreading skewed understandings of anything at all as much as possible. It’s a matter of principle.
Nobody does this when people say their computer is “thinking” when it’s running slow, I just don’t see the necessity of pointing this out every time the topic is brought up.
Nobody thinks they are the same, some wonder if it can be made to do equivalent things. Nobody needs to hear that what they are doing isn’t thought for the same reason nobody needs to hear that my computer isn’t actually thinking when it’s running slow.
I don’t think this is true. People are out here having straight up AI psychosis. Do you really think there aren’t fools who believe their computer is actually thinking like a human?
I don’t think a single one of them believe that pattern prediction vs a human brain is meaningfully distinct, so this argument is worthless to them, it’d be like saying “nuh uh”, you’re not engaging with their beliefs, so, how would this help?
This is assuming that the average person has a solid grasp of the inner workings of an LLM, which unfortunately isn’t the case. Regardless, it would only be a semantic argument if they were shifting the meanings of the relevant words to support their argument, which they evidently weren’t doing here.
LLMs don’t think, they predict patterns in language mathematically, making them functionally incapable of human capacities like compassion and intelligence, both of which require a conscious mind to be displayed. To use words that go against that without being precise is to imply the opposite. It’s simply a matter of describing it accurately.
If anything, considering it ‘AI’ is a semantic argument because it implies there’s some form of higher thinking occurring under the surface, which there clearly isn’t. It would be like if I said my PC was intelligent because it has a CPU. Obviously we’ve passed the point of using a better term, but it’s still unfortunate we’ve decided on that because it’s inherently misleading.
I think you’re using cumbersome in an unnecessarily negative way since it’s very much an inevitable feature of the concept at hand. Yes, it’s cumbersome, like all controversial fields of study. Things like that work themselves out over time. Until then we’ll just have to deal with it without misleading anyone.
What exactly is the harm in people being mislead in this way, as long as they still know about the risks of hallucination, in your eyes?
Having an inaccurate view about something so fundamental to the topic leads you to predict reality incorrectly and make bad decisions
Nobody does this when people say their computer is “thinking” when it’s running slow, I just don’t see the necessity of pointing this out every time the topic is brought up.
I agree it’s unnecessary to point out. Using anthropomorphising shorthand to talk about technology is extremely common, and AI is no different; saying an AI is “thinking” or whatever is fine. But there is a difference between using that language as shorthand, and actually holding misconceptions about what is really happening. So saying that it’s fine for someone to be misled and use that language is different than just saying the language makes sense to use.
When is being mislead not a bad thing? In a perfect world, there would be none of that. Of course we don’t live in a utopia, but I’d prefer if we avoid spreading skewed understandings of anything at all as much as possible. It’s a matter of principle.
Nobody does this when people say their computer is “thinking” when it’s running slow, I just don’t see the necessity of pointing this out every time the topic is brought up.
Ideally people who say that aren’t misled into believing their computer is thinking in the same way that a human is
Nobody thinks they are the same, some wonder if it can be made to do equivalent things. Nobody needs to hear that what they are doing isn’t thought for the same reason nobody needs to hear that my computer isn’t actually thinking when it’s running slow.
I don’t think this is true. People are out here having straight up AI psychosis. Do you really think there aren’t fools who believe their computer is actually thinking like a human?
I don’t think a single one of them believe that pattern prediction vs a human brain is meaningfully distinct, so this argument is worthless to them, it’d be like saying “nuh uh”, you’re not engaging with their beliefs, so, how would this help?