zlacker

The details in how I talk about LLMs matter.

If I use human-related terminology as a shortcut, as some kind of macro to talk at a higher level/more efficiently about something I want to do that might be okay.

What is not okay is talking in a way that implies intent, for example.

Compare:

  "The AI doesn't want to do that."

versus

  "The model doesn't do that with this prompt and all others we tried."

The latter way of talking is still high-level enough but avoids equating/confusing the name of a field with a sentient being.

Whenever I hear people saying "an AI" I suggest they replace AI with "statistics" to make it obvious how problematic anthropomorphisms may have become:

  *"The statistics doesn't want to do that."

>>jll29+(OP)
The only reason that sounds weird to you is because you have the experience of being human. Human behavior is not magic. It's still just statistics. You go to the bathroom when you have to pee not because some magical concept of consciousness, but because a reciptor in your brain goes off and starts the chain of making you go to the bathroom. AI's are not magic, but nobody has sufficiently provided any proof we are somehow special either.