Comment by righthand
10 hours ago
That’s because the model isn’t actually thinking, pushing back, and challenging your ideas. It’s just statistically agreeing with you until it reaches too wide of a context. You’re living in the delusion that it’s “working” or having a “conversation” with you.
How is conceptualizing what the model is doing as having a conversation any different from any other abstraction? “No, the browser isn’t downloading a file. The electrons in the silicon are actually…”
There are people with a philosophical objection to using everyday words to describe LLM interactions for various reasons, but commonly because they're worried stupid people will confuse the LLM for a person. Which, I suppose stupid people will do that, but I'm not inventing a parallel language or putting a * next to each thing which means "this, but with an LLM instead of a person"
That is an interesting way of looking at that, thanks for the perspective!
Like, the words fit… why create a second parallel language for describing LLM behavior.
Somebody else said it… the whole “it’s a stochastic parrot” thing is sooooo cliche and boring at this point. It’s like, duh… what is your point?