This is missing the larger point, perhaps intentionally. Anthropomorphic descriptions color our descriptions of subjective experience, and carry a great deal of embedded meaning. Perhaps you mean it communicates the wrong idea to the layperson?
Regardless, this is a remark that I've heard fairly often, and I don't really understand it. Why does it matter if some people believe AI is really sentient? It just seems like a strange hill to die on when it seems - on the face of it - a largely inconsequential issue.
> Perhaps you mean it communicates the wrong idea to the layperson?
No, I mean it communicates the wrong idea to everyone.
Among laypeople it encourages magical thinking about these statistical models.
Amongst the educated, the metaphor only serves to cloud what's really going on, while creating the impression that these models in some way meaningfully mimick the brain, something we know so little about that it's the height of hubris to come to that conclusion.
Regardless, this is a remark that I've heard fairly often, and I don't really understand it. Why does it matter if some people believe AI is really sentient? It just seems like a strange hill to die on when it seems - on the face of it - a largely inconsequential issue.