[NewJazz]

That's because it can't literally reason, it has just been manually steered into those reasoning speech cycles.

[emodendroket]

Yes, yes. Does everyone still find it interesting to go over this point every time about how it's not literally a person with human reasoning?

[NewJazz]

Uh, only when people don't seem to understand it, or try to personify it. Which is quite often.

[CamperBob2]

What about when they ask how you can take gold at IMO and solve research-level math problems without reasoning?

[emodendroket]

People “personify” their cars but I don’t think because they think cars have human cognition

[lmm]

People are weird about their cars and make major errors in judgement as a result (e.g. we tolerate incredibly high rates of people getting killed because they were "hit by a car", as though the driver had nothing to do with it). Pushing back on that is absolutely worthwhile.

[emodendroket]

Which has approximately zero to do with the anthropomorphization of the car itself. I could have chosen a different machine or tool to make my point.

[lmm]

> Which has approximately zero to do with the anthropomorphization of the car itself.

You don't think people talking about the car doing things has anything to do with anthropomorphising the car?

[NewJazz]

Not in the same way.

[emodendroket]

That doesn't seem to be much more than special pleading without an explanation of how you think it's different.