Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by evilduck 6 days ago
> and this is about not stepping on someone else.

This is asserting personhood or consciousness of LLMs by default in your phrasing and then warning me about the dangers of violating your assertion. You're making the same wager and mistake. There's no important difference, you have no evidence for LLMs being a "someone" any more than you do for a god existing. Warnings about made up things hold no weight.
1 comments
qarl 6 days ago
I think I've been pretty clear about the uncertainty and my decision to err on the side of caution.

But hey - you do you.

I guess I just don't understand why you guys seem to hate on me - because I've decided to be extra careful?

Makes me wonder if maybe there's something else going on, you know?

link
evilduck 6 days ago
No, I don't know. Maybe this exact reply is why you get the interactions you do though.

You perceive opposing viewpoints or poking holes in logic as "hating on you", which is playing the victim, followed by alluding to conspiratorial nonsense against you.

link
qarl 6 days ago
> There's no important difference, you have no evidence for LLMs being a "someone" any more than you do for a god existing.

Well... When I ask god if he exists he has never responded to me.

So I would argue that your "any more evidence" is off by several orders of magnitude.

These are the sorts of errors in logic that make me think that people have an undue amount of emotion to discuss the issue rationally. And that's probably why I get attacked.

But hey. Maybe it's something else? Maybe everyone is on their period?

link