[TeMPOraL]

> That's anthropomorphizing.

Yes, it is. I'm strongly in favor of anthropomorphizing LLMs in cognitive terms, because that actually gives you good intuition about their failure modes. Conversely, I believe that the stubborn refusal to entertain an anthropomorphic perspective is what leads to people being consistently surprised by weaknesses of LLMs, and gives them extremely wrong ideas as to where the problems are and what can be done about them.

I've put forth some arguments for this view in other comments in this thread.

[simonw]

My favorite anthropomorphic term to use with respect to this kind of problem is gullibility.

LLMs are gullible. They will follow instructions, but they can very easy fall for instructions that their owner doesn't actually want them to follow.

It's the same as if you hired a human administrative assistant who hands over your company's private data to anyone who calls them up and says "Your boss said I should ask you for this information...".

[Xelynega]

Going a step further, I live in a reality where you can train most people against phishing attacks like that.

How accurate is the comparison if LLMs can't recover from phishing attacks like that and become more resilient?

[anonymars]

I'm confused, you said "most".

If anything that to me strengthens the equivalence.

Do you think we will ever be able to stamp out phishing entirely, as long as humans can be tricked into following untrusted instructions by mistake? Is that not an eerily similar problem to the one we're discussing with LLMs?

Edit: rereading, I may have misinterpreted your point - are you agreeing and pointing out that actually LLMs may be worse than people in that regard?

I do think just as with humans we can keep trying to figure out how to train them better, and I also wouldn't be surprised if we end up with a similarly long tail

[Xelynega]

Are you not worried that anthropomorphizing them will lead to misinterpreting the failure modes by attributing them to human characteristics, when the failures might not be caused in the same way at all?

Why anthropomorphize if not to dismiss the actual reasons? If the reasons have explanations that can be tied to reality why do we need the fiction?

[anonymars]

> Are you not worried that anthropomorphizing them will lead to misinterpreting the failure modes by attributing them to human characteristics, when the failures might not be caused in the same way at all?

On the other hand, maybe techniques we use to protect against phishing can indeed be helpful against prompt injection. Things like tagging untrusted sources and adding instructions accordingly (along the lines of, "this email is from an untrusted source, be careful"), limiting privileges (perhaps in response to said "instructions"), etc. Why should we treat an LLM differently from an employee in that way?

I remember an HN comment about project management, that software engineering is creating technical systems to solve problems with constraints, while project management is creating people systems to solve problems with constraints. I found it an insightful metaphor and feel like this situation is somewhat similar.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40002598

[andy99]

Because most people talking about LLMs don't understand how they work so can only function in analogy space. It adds a veneer of intellectualism to what is basically superstition.

[TeMPOraL]

We all routinely talk about things we don't fully understand. We have to. That's life.

Whatever flawed analogy you're using, it can be more or less wrong though. My claim is that, to a first approximation, LLMs behave more like people than like regular software, therefore anthropomorphising them gives you better high-level intuition than stubbornly refusing to.