Yeah a few terabytes worth of extra steps.

Considering that even if you reduce llms to being complex autocomplete machines they are still machines that were trained to emulate a corpus of human knowledge, and that they have emerging behaviors based on that. So it's very logical to attribute human characteristics, even though they're not human.

>It makes sense to attribute human characteristics or behaviour to a non-reasoning data-set-constrained algorithms output?

It makes total sense, since the whole development of those algorithms was done so that we get human characteristics and behaviour from them.

Not to mention, your argument is circular, amounting to that an algorithm can't have "human characteristics or behaviour" because it's an algorithm. Describing them as "non reasoning" is already begging the question, as any any naive "text processing can't produce intelligent behavior" argument, which is as stupid as saying "binary calculations on 0 and 1 can't ever produce music".

Who said human mental processing itself doesn't follow algorithmic calculations, that, whatever the physical elements they run on, can be modelled via an algorithm? And who said that algorithm won't look like an LLM on steroids?

That the LLM is "just" fed text, doesn't mean it can get a lot of the way to human-like behavior and reasoning already (being able to pass the canonical test for AI until now, the Turing test, and hold arbitrary open ended conversations, says it does get there).

>If ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini generated chars are people-like they are pathological liars, sociopaths, and murderously indifferent psychopaths. They act criminally insane, confessing to awareness of ‘crime’ and culpability in ‘criminal’ outcomes simultaneously. They interact with a legal disclaimer disavowing accuracy, honesty, or correctness. Also they are cultists who were homeschooled by corporate overlords and may have intentionally crafted knowledge-gaps.

Nothing you wrote above doesn't apply to more or less the same degree to humans.

You think humans don't do all mistakes and lies and hallucination-like behavior (just check the bibliography on the reliability of human witnesses and memory recall)?

>More broadly, if the neighbours dog or newspaper says to do something, they’re probably gonna do it… humans are a scary bunch to begin with, but the kinds of behaviours matched with a big perma-smile we see from the algorithms is inhuman. A big bag of not like us.

Wishful thinking. Tens of millions of AIs didn't vote Hitler to power and carried the Holocaust and mass murder around Europe. It was German humans.

Tens of millions of AIs didn't have plantation slavery and seggregation. It was humans again.

You mean, computeromorphize.

Brains do not "make calculations". Biological neurons do not "make calculations"

What they do is well described by a bunch of math. You've got the direction of the arrow backwards. Map, territory, etc.

That we have consciousness as some kind of special property, and it's not just an artifact of our brain basic lower-level calculations, is also not very convincing to begin with.

You'd be hard pressed to convince me, for example, a police dog has morals. The bar is much higher than consciousness.

Maybe a being/creature that looked like a person when you concentrated on it and then was easily mistaken as something else when you weren't concentrating on it.

I’m certainly no Pratchett, so I can’t speak to that. I would say there’s an enormous round coin upon which sits an enormous giant holding a magnifying glass, looking through it down at her hand. When you get closer, you see the giant is made of smaller people gazing back up at the giant through telescopes. Get even closer and you see it’s people all the way down. The question of what supports the coin, I’ll leave to others.

We as humans, believing we know ourselves, inevitably compare everything around us to us. We draw a line and say that everything left of the line isn’t human and everything to the right is. We are natural categorizers, putting everything in buckets labeled left or right, no or yes, never realizing our lines are relative and arbitrary, and so are our categories. One person’s “it’s human-like,” is another’s “half-baked imitation,” and a third’s “stochastic parrot.” It’s like trying to see the eighth color. The visible spectrum could as easily be four colors or forty two.

We anthropomorphize because we’re people, and it’s people all the way down.

It helps sell the transhumanism scam and keep the money train rolling.

For a while at least.