You misread.

I didn't say the pattern matching engine wanted anything.

I said the pattern matching engine matched the pattern of wanting something.

To an observer the distinction is indistinguishable and irrelevant, but the purpose is to discuss the actual problem without pedants saying "actually the LLM can't want anything".

▲

surgical_fire 4 hours ago | parent [-]

> To an observer the distinction is indistinguishable and irrelevant

Absolutely not. I expect more critical thought in a forum full of technical people when discussing technical subjects.

▲

margalabargala 4 hours ago | parent [-]

I agree, which is why it's disappointing that you were so eager to point out that "The LLM cannot want" that you completely missed how I did not claim that the LLM wanted.

The original comment had the exact verbose hedging you are asking for when discussing technical subjects. Clearly this is not sufficient to prevent people from jumping in with an "Ackshually" instead of reading the words in front of their face.

▲

surgical_fire 24 minutes ago | parent [-]

> The original comment had the exact verbose hedging you are asking for when discussing technical subjects.

Is this how you normally speak when you find a bug in software? You hedge language around marketing talking points?

I sincerely doubt that. When people find bugs in software they just say that the software is buggy.

But for LLM there's this ridiculous roundabout about "pattern matching behaving as if it wanted something" which is a roundabout way to aacribe intentionality.

If you said this about your OS people qould look at you funny, or assume you were joking.

Sorry, I don't think I am in the wrong for asking people to think more critically about this shit.

	▲	margalabargala 11 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> Is this how you normally speak when you find a bug in software? You hedge language around marketing talking points? I'm sorry, what are you asking for exactly? You were upset because you hallucinated that I said the LLM "wanted" something, and now you're upset that I used the exact technically correct language you specifically requested because it's not how people "normally" speak? Sounds like the constant is just you being upset, regardless of what people say. People say things like "the program is trying to do X", when obviously programs can't try to do a thing, because that implies intention, and they don't have agency. And if you say your OS is lying to you, people will treat that as though the OS is giving you false information when it should have different true information. People have done this for years. Here's an example: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/answers/questions/2437149/...