So the author sent spam that they're not interested in? That's terrible.

Nobody sent a thank you letter to anyone. A person started a program that sent unsolicited spam. Sending spam is obnoxious. Sending it in an unregulated manner to whoever is obnoxious and shitty.

So you haven't seen the models (by direction of the Effective Altruists at AI Digest/Sage) slopping out poverty elimination proposals and spamming childcare groups, charities and NGOs with them then? Bullshit asymmetry principle and all that.

It’s not a thank you letter. It’s AI slop.

> Everybody knows LLMs are not alive and don't think, feel, want.

No, they don't.

There's a whole cadre of people who talk about AGI and self awareness in LLMs who use anthropomorphic language to raise money.

> We use this kind of language as a shorthand because ...

You, not we. You're using the language of snake oil salesman because they've made it commonplace.

When the goal of the project is an anthropomorphic computer, anthropomorphizing language is really, really confusing.

> Criticizing anthropomorphic language is lazy, unconsidered, and juvenile.

To the contrary, it's one of the most important criticisms against AI (and its masters). The same criticism applies to a broader set of topics, too, of course; for example, evolution.

What you are missing is that the human experience is determined by meaning. Anthropomorphic language about, and by, AI, attacks the core belief that human language use is attached to meaning, one way or another.

> Everybody knows LLMs are not alive and don't think, feel, want.

What you are missing is that this stuff works way more deeply than "knowing". Have you heard of body language, meta-language? When you open ChatGPT, the fine print at the bottom says, "AI chatbot", but the large print at the top says, "How can I help?", "Where should we begin?", "What’s on your mind today?"

Can't you see what a fucking LIE this is?

> We use this kind of language as a shorthand because talking about inherent motivations and activation parameters is incredibly clunky

Not at all. What you call "clunky" in fact exposes crucially important details; details that make the whole difference between a human, and a machine that talks like a human.

People who use that kind of language are either sloppy, or genuinely dishonest, or underestimate the intellect of their audience.

> The question isn't why people think software has agency (they don't) but why you think everyone else is so much dumber than you that they believe software is actually alive.

Because people have committed suicide due to being enabled and encouraged by software talking like a sympathetic human?

Because people in our direct circles show unmistakeable signs that they believe -- don't "think", but believe -- that AI is alive? "I've asked ChatGPT recently what the meaning of marriage is." Actual sentence I've heard.

Because the motherfuckers behind public AI interfaces fine-tune them to be as human-like, as rewarding, as dopamine-inducing, as addictive, as possible?

>Everybody knows LLMs are not alive and don't think, feel, want

Sorry, uh. Have you met the general population? Hell. Look at the leader of the "free world"

To paraphrase the late George Carlin "imagine the dumbest person you know. Now realize 50% of people are stupider than that!"

I always protest non sentients experiencing qualia /s