6 ms·

Well... actually, it isn't. I'm also writing my own programming language (named "Bau"). I asked Claude to convert a minesweeper game from C to that language. I

Well... actually, it isn't. I'm also writing my own programming language (named "Bau"). I asked Claude to convert a minesweeper game from C to that language. I only gave some example programs in my language and the grammar. This worked on the first try (Claude didn't even have access to the compiler).

Forgeties79 4mo ago
Not to single you out but I really don’t like the whole “I asked an LLM” phrasing. All this language anthropomorphizing a tool is just weird to me
- thomasmg 4mo ago
  I understand what you mean; Claude is a tool and does not have feelings, thats clear to me. But how else can I describe what I did? "Wrote to Claude" has the same issue. Posted, typed, inputed?
  - Forgeties79 4mo ago
    “I used Claude to…” “I tried to X using Claude” etc Anyway doesn’t matter. I’m just kind of whining, I probably should’ve never written that comment in the first place. I think it just sticks out to me unlike like a lot of common parlance in other industries, which can definitely steer into anthropomorphizing, because we’re seeing all kinds of issues with people attributing actual intelligence to these things or just experiencing general psychological distress because of them. Using language that ascribes human characteristics to describe using LLMs just feels weird in that context
    - wizzwizz4 4mo ago
      I say "I asked Python to".
    - Nevermark 4mo ago
      Given these machines are the product of massive intentional and increasingly successful efforts to humanize computers, increased anthropomorphization is appropriate. The behavior/attribute overlap isn't a coincidence or misunderstanding, it is by design. In case of "ask", that describes our behavior not the machines. But if a machine is able to recall and use some fact fluently then it makes sense to say it "knows" it. We routinely use words like "know", without any confusion, when talking about simpler lifeforms that are far less human-like than these models. None of the above means the machine feels pain, is conscious, has a continuous identity, etc. Yet.
- brentcrude 4mo ago
  [dead]
- deleted 4mo ago
  [deleted]

Forgeties79 4mo ago

Not to single you out but I really don’t like the whole “I asked an LLM” phrasing. All this language anthropomorphizing a tool is just weird to me

thomasmg 4mo ago
I understand what you mean; Claude is a tool and does not have feelings, thats clear to me. But how else can I describe what I did? "Wrote to Claude" has the same issue. Posted, typed, inputed?
- Forgeties79 4mo ago
  “I used Claude to…” “I tried to X using Claude” etc Anyway doesn’t matter. I’m just kind of whining, I probably should’ve never written that comment in the first place. I think it just sticks out to me unlike like a lot of common parlance in other industries, which can definitely steer into anthropomorphizing, because we’re seeing all kinds of issues with people attributing actual intelligence to these things or just experiencing general psychological distress because of them. Using language that ascribes human characteristics to describe using LLMs just feels weird in that context
  - wizzwizz4 4mo ago
    I say "I asked Python to".
  - Nevermark 4mo ago
    Given these machines are the product of massive intentional and increasingly successful efforts to humanize computers, increased anthropomorphization is appropriate. The behavior/attribute overlap isn't a coincidence or misunderstanding, it is by design. In case of "ask", that describes our behavior not the machines. But if a machine is able to recall and use some fact fluently then it makes sense to say it "knows" it. We routinely use words like "know", without any confusion, when talking about simpler lifeforms that are far less human-like than these models. None of the above means the machine feels pain, is conscious, has a continuous identity, etc. Yet.
brentcrude 4mo ago
[dead]
deleted 4mo ago
[deleted]