upvote
Anthropomorphizing is a problem when you're talking about treating something that's not living as if it were. Using humanizing language invites discussions of things like the rights and feelings of an algorithm. A judge that is misled by the application of human-centric language to an algorithm can lead to some terrible outcomes. Not everyone is an LLM expert and the language people use leads to them treating LLMs like actual, real humans. That is terrifying.
reply
> I know people who are like that too.

This is part of the problem being described. You are part of the problem.

"Some people are bad at X" is not comparable—is not even in the same category—as "LLMs are fundamentally incapable of X".

Every human (at least to a first approximation) is capable of understanding, of learning, of remembering things, of doing math, of counting the number of "r"s in "strawberry".

What you are observing is that some humans are careless, do not take the time and effort to understand, or have internalized the idea that they're "not smart enough" or "not the type of person" who understands things like <whatever>.

That has nothing remotely to do with the fact that LLMs have no consciousness, no self-awareness, no cognition, no understanding. At a fundamental level.

reply
I don't think anyone in this conversation is saying this behavior is anything but the fault of the user not understanding how these tools work? This is a weirdly aggressive post.
reply
This is an extremely common fallacy I've seen lots and lots of people fall into with respect to LLMs. In nearly every case, they use the fact that "some humans can't do X" to claim that LLMs are, in fact, basically conscious/human-like/AGI already.

This is deeply untrue, and is highly likely to lead them to bad conclusions about what we can and should do with LLMs.

reply
> This is an extremely common fallacy ... they use the fact that "some humans can't do X" to claim that LLMs are, in fact, basically conscious/human-like/AGI already.

Claiming that LLMs are conscious or human-like because humans can't do X seems a very strange way to argue for LLM intelligence.

Usually, it goes the other way around: an LLM sceptic says "LLMs are dumb because they can't do X" and soon someone has to remind them that also most of the population can't, in fact, do X.

reply