[ineedasername]

Why is it odious to say “it got excited” about a process that will literally use words in the vein of “I got excited so I did X”?

This is “talks like a duck” territory. Saying the not-duck “quacked” when it produced the same sound… If that’s odious to you then your dislike of not-ducks, or for the people who claim they’ll lay endless golden eggs, is getting in the way of more important things when the folks who hear the not-duck talk and then say “it quacked”.

[nozzlegear]

> Saying the not-duck “quacked” when it produced the same sound

How does a program get excited? It's a program, it doesn't have emotions. It's not producing a faux-emotion in the way a "not-duck quacks", it lacks them entirely. Any emotion you read from an LLM is anthropomorphism, and that's what I find odious.

[apetresc]

We say that a shell script "is trying to open this file". We say that a flaky integration "doesn't feel like working today". And these are all way less emotive-presenting interactions than a message that literally expresses excitement.

Yes, I know it's not conscious in the same way as a living biological thing is. Yes, we all know you know that too. Nobody is being fooled.

[nozzlegear]

> We say that a shell script "is trying to open this file".

I don't think this is a good example, how else would you describe what the script is actively doing using English? There's a difference between describing something and anthropomorhpizing it.

> We say that a flaky integration "doesn't feel like working today".

When people say this they're doing it with a tongue in their cheek. Nobody is actually prescribing volition or emotion to the flaky integration. But even if they were, the difference is that there isn't an entire global economy propped up behind convincing you that your flaky integration is nearing human levels of intelligence and sentience.

> Nobody is being fooled.

Are you sure about that? I'm entirely unconvinced that laymen out there – or, indeed, even professionals here on HN – know (or care about) the difference, and language like "it got excited and decided to send me a WhatsApp message" is both cringey and, frankly, dangerous because it pushes the myth of AGI.

[apetresc]

I think you're conflating two different things. It's entirely possible (and, I think, quite likely) that AI is simultaneously not anthropomorphic (and is not ACTUALLY "excited" in the way I thought you were objecting to earlier), but also IS "intelligent" for all intents and purposes. Is it the same type and nature as human intelligence? No, probably not. Does that mean it's "just a flaky integration" and won't have a seismic effect on the economy? I wouldn't bet on it. It's certainly not a foregone conclusion, whichever way it ends up landing.

And I don't think AGI is a "myth." It may or may not be achieved in the near future with current LLM-like techniques, but it's certainly not categorically impossible just because it won't be "sentient".

[ramblerman]

OP did't like anthropomorphizing an LLM.

And you tried to explain the whole thing to him from the perspective of a duck.

[ineedasername]

I know, seems a bit silly right? But go with me for a moment. First, I'm assuming you get the duck reference? If not, it's probably a cultural difference, but in US English, "If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck..." is basically saying "well, treat it like a duck". or "it's a duck". Usage varies, metaphors are fluid, so it goes. I figured even if this idiom wasn't shared, the meaning still wouldn't be lost.

That aside, why? Because the normal rhetorical sticks don't really work in conversation, and definitely not short bits like comments here on HN, when it comes to asking a person to consider a different point of view. So, I try to go in a little sideways, slightly different approach in terms of comparisons or metaphors-- okay, lots of time more than slightly different-- and lots of times? more meaningful conversation and exchanges come from it than the standard form because, to respond at all, its difficult to respond in quite the same pat formulaic dismissal that is the common reflex-- mine included-- I'm not claiming perfection, only attempts at doing better.

Results vary, but I've had more good discussions come of it than bad, and heard much better and more eye-opening-- for me-- explanations of peoples' points of view when engaging in a way that is both genuine and novel. And on the more analytical end of things, this general approach, when teaching logic & analysis? It's not my full time profession, and I haven't taught in a while, but I've forced a few hundred college students to sit through my style of speechifying and rhetoricalizing, and they seem to learn better and give better answers if I don't get too mechanical and use the same form and syntax, words and phrases and idioms they've always heard.