[righthand]

That’s because the model isn’t actually thinking, pushing back, and challenging your ideas. It’s just statistically agreeing with you until it reaches too wide of a context. You’re living in the delusion that it’s “working” or having a “conversation” with you.

[alehlopeh]

How is conceptualizing what the model is doing as having a conversation any different from any other abstraction? “No, the browser isn’t downloading a file. The electrons in the silicon are actually…”

[colechristensen]

There are people with a philosophical objection to using everyday words to describe LLM interactions for various reasons, but commonly because they're worried stupid people will confuse the LLM for a person. Which, I suppose stupid people will do that, but I'm not inventing a parallel language or putting a * next to each thing which means "this, but with an LLM instead of a person"

[cruffle_duffle]

That is an interesting way of looking at that, thanks for the perspective!

Like, the words fit… why create a second parallel language for describing LLM behavior.

Somebody else said it… the whole “it’s a stochastic parrot” thing is sooooo cliche and boring at this point. It’s like, duh… what is your point?

[righthand]

One is an abstraction, another is a fantasy.