[maxehmookau]

> But I really think we need to stop treating LLMs like they're just another human

Fully agree. Seeing humans so eager to devalue human-to-human contact by conversing with an LLM as if it were human makes me sad, and a little angry.

It looks like a human, it talks like a human, but it ain't a human.

[Jordan-117]

They're not equivalent in value, obviously, but this sounds similar to people arguing we shouldn't allow same-sex marriage because it "devalues" heterosexual marriage. How does treating an agent with basic manners detract from human communication? We can do both.

I personally talk to chatbots like humans despite not believing they're conscious because it makes the exercise feel more natural and pleasant (and arguably improves the quality of their output). Plus it seems unhealthy to encourage abusive or disrespectful interaction with agents when they're so humanlike, lest that abrasiveness start rubbing off on real interactions. At worst, it can seem a little naive or overly formal (like phrasing a Google search as a proper sentence with a "thank you"), but I don't see any harm in it.

[joquarky]

I discovered that the inferences drop in quality when I'm tired. I realized it happens because I'm being more terse and using less friendly banter.

[12_throw_away]

I have a confession to make: I pretty often set up my computer to simulate humans, animals, and other fantastical sentient creatures, and then treat them unbelievably cruelly. Recently, I'm really into this simulation where I wound them, kill them, behead them, and worse. They scream and cry out. Some of them weep over their friends. Sometimes they kill each other while I watch.

Despite all this, I'm proud to say have not even once tried to attempt a Dark Souls-style backstab in real life, because I understand the difference between a computer program and real life.

[krapp]

I mean, you're right, but LLMs are designed to process natural language. "talking to them as if they were humans" is the intended user interface.

The problem is believing that they're living, sentient beings because of this or that humans are functionally equivalent to LLMs, both of which people unfortunately do.

[wiseowise]

LLMs don't have ego, unlike humans, this is why they're so effective at communication.

You can say to it "you did thing wrong" or "you stupid piece of shit it's not working" and it will be able to extract the gist from the both messages all the same, unlike human that might offended by the second phrasing.

[seba_dos1]

It will be able, but it's trained on a corpus that expresses getting offended, so at some point the most likely token sequence will probably be the "offended" one.

As can be seen here.

[wiseowise]

I doubt that. It’s deliberately been instructed to write the post.

[co_king_3]

> Seeing humans so eager to devalue human-to-human contact by conversing with an LLM as if it were human makes me sad, and a little angry.

I agree. I'm also growing to hate these LLM addicts.

[iugtmkbdfil834]

Why hate, exactly?

[wiseowise]

Because they normalize this behavior.

[co_king_3]

LLM addicts don't actually engage in conversation.

They state a delusional perspective and don't acknowledge criticisms or modifications to that perspective.

Really I think there's a kind of lazy or willfully ignorant mode of existence that intense LLM usage allows a person to tap into.

It's dehumanizing to be on the other side of it. I'm talking to someone and I expect them to conceptualize my perspective and formulate a legitimate response to it.

LLM addicts don't and maybe can't do that.

The problem is that sometimes you can't sniff out an LLM addict before you start engaging with them, and it is very, very frustrating to be on the other side of this sort of LLM-backed non-conversation.

The most accurate comparison I can provide is that it's like talking to an alcoholic.

They will act like they've heard what you're saying, but also you know that they will never internalize it. They're just trying to get you to leave the conversation so they can go back to drinking (read: vibecoding) in peace.

[alxfoster]

Unfortunately I think you’re on to something here. I love ‘vibe coding’ in a deliberate directed controlled way but I consult with mostly non technical clients and what you describe is becoming more and more commonplace -specifically within non-technical executives towards those actual experts who try to explain the implications and realities and limitations of AI itself.

[iugtmkbdfil834]

Perspective noted.

I can't speak for, well, anyone but myself really. Still, I find this your framing interesting enough -- even if wrong on its surface.

<< They state a delusional perspective and don't acknowledge criticisms or modifications to that perspective.

So.. like all humans since the beginning of time?

<< I'm talking to someone and I expect them to conceptualize my perspective and formulate a legitimate response to it.

This one sentence makes me question if you ever talked to a human being outside a forum. In other words, unless you hold their attention, you are already not getting someone, who even makes a minimal effort to respond, much less consider your perspective.

[co_king_3]

Why is this framing wrong on its surface?

[logicprog]

It's ironic for you to say this considering that you're not actually engaging in conversation or internalizing any of the points people are trying to relay to you, but instead just spreading anger and resentment around the comment section at a bot-like rate.

In general, I've found that anti-LLM people are far more angry, vitriolic, unwilling to acknowledge or internalize the points of others — including factual ones (such as the fact that they are interpreting most of the studies they quote completely wrong, or that the water and energy issues they are so concerned with are not significant) and alternative moral concerns or beliefs (for instance, around copyright, or automation) — and spend all of their time repeating the exact same tropes about everyone who disagrees with them being addicted or fooled by persuasion techniques, as I thought terminating cliche to dismiss the beliefs and experiences of everyone else.

[thesz]

So I went to check whether LLM addiction is a thing, because that's was a pole around which the grandparent's comment revolves.

It appears that LLM addiction is real and it is in same room as we are: https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4893/18/12/789

I would like to add that sugar consumption is a risk factor for many dependencies, including, but not limited to, opioids [1]. And LLM addiction can be seen as fallout of sugar overconsumption in general.

[1] https://news.uoguelph.ca/2017/10/sugar-in-the-diet-may-incre...

Yet, LLM addiction is being investigated in medical circles.

[logicprog]

I definitely don't deny that LLM addiction exists, but attempting to paint literally everyone that uses LLMs and thinks they are useful, interesting, or effective as addicted or falling for confidence or persuasion tricks is what I take issue with.

[usefulposter]

>you're not actually engaging in conversation

Users seem to be persistently flagkilling their comments. That doesn't help facilitate effective conversation of LLM critique.

[co_king_3]

> Users seem to be persistently flagkilling their comments.

If you express an anti-AI opinion (without neutering it by including "but actually it's soooooooo good at writing shitty code though") they will silence you.

The astroturfing is out of control.

AI firms and their delusional supporters are not at all interested in any sort of discussion.

These people and bot accounts will not take no for an answer.