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?
“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
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.
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