[thomasmg]

Well... actually, it isn't. I'm also writing my own programming language (named "Bau"). I asked Claude to convert a minesweeper game from C to that language. I only gave some example programs in my language and the grammar. This worked on the first try (Claude didn't even have access to the compiler).

[Forgeties79]

Not to single you out but I really don’t like the whole “I asked an LLM” phrasing. All this language anthropomorphizing a tool is just weird to me

[thomasmg]

I understand what you mean; Claude is a tool and does not have feelings, thats clear to me. But how else can I describe what I did? "Wrote to Claude" has the same issue. Posted, typed, inputed?

[Forgeties79]

“I used Claude to…” “I tried to X using Claude” etc

Anyway doesn’t matter. I’m just kind of whining, I probably should’ve never written that comment in the first place. I think it just sticks out to me unlike like a lot of common parlance in other industries, which can definitely steer into anthropomorphizing, because we’re seeing all kinds of issues with people attributing actual intelligence to these things or just experiencing general psychological distress because of them. Using language that ascribes human characteristics to describe using LLMs just feels weird in that context

[Nevermark]

Given these machines are the product of massive intentional and increasingly successful efforts to humanize computers, increased anthropomorphization is appropriate.

The behavior/attribute overlap isn't a coincidence or misunderstanding, it is by design.

In case of "ask", that describes our behavior not the machines.

But if a machine is able to recall and use some fact fluently then it makes sense to say it "knows" it. We routinely use words like "know", without any confusion, when talking about simpler lifeforms that are far less human-like than these models.

None of the above means the machine feels pain, is conscious, has a continuous identity, etc. Yet.

[wizzwizz4]

I say "I asked Python to".