Assuming any sort of intent at all is the mistake.
Comment on F*** You! Co-Creator of Go Language is Rightly Furious Over This Appreciation Email
fuzzzerd@programming.dev 3 days agoLet’s be generous for a moment and assume good intent, how else would you describe the situation where the llm doesn’t consider a negative response to its actions due to its training and context being limited?
Sure it gives the llm a more human like persona, but so far I’ve yet to read a better way to describing its behaviour, it is designed to emulate human behavior so using human descriptors helps convey the intent.
JcbAzPx@lemmy.world 3 days ago
neclimdul@lemmy.world 2 days ago
I think you did a fine job right there explaining it without personifying it. You also captured the nuance without implying the machine could apply empathy, reasoning, or be held accountable the same way a human could.
fuzzzerd@programming.dev 2 days ago
There’s value in brevity and clarity, I took two paragraphs and the other was two words. I don’t like it either, but it does seem to be the way most people talk.
neclimdul@lemmy.world 2 days ago
I assumed you would understand I meant the short part of your statement describing the LLM. Not your slight dig at me, your setting up the question, and your clarification on your perspective.
So you be more clear, I meant “The IIm doesn’t consider a negative response to its actions due to its training and context being limited”
In fact, what you said is not much different from the statement in question. And you could argue on top of being more brief, if you remove “top of mind” it’s actually more clear. Implying training and prompt context instead of the bot understanding and being mindful of the context it was operating in.