whoops, scrap my previous answer, especially the first point. I now see that you were referring to a specific quote. Let me see.
Ah, yes, you may be right that I may have equivocated in the quote you cite, that it may have been more precise had I used the shorthand LLMs. So thanks for your charity!
However, I would like to point out that the fact that you can find something either trivially true or trivially false, under a binary logic may leave the proposition itself as not trivial at all under a different interpretation, no? I mean it’s significant that it is not trivially true, it already has two interpretations. But ok, that’s an aside that i’m not interested much in, and I think you may not be interested in it either.
And now your request for a meaningful definition suddenly makes a lot of sense too!!!! I think what I was trying to express is revealed by ‘on their own’. I mean that whereas humans (and maybe animals, though not 100% sure, as i state in my caps bold letters, i may be guilty of anthropomorphism) may sometimes do as others do, and at other times do as they please (judge, choose, etc), LLMs only have one of these options (at the time of writing i may have thought that LLMs don’t judge-opine etc without prompts—to which of course you can reply that humans always do so too (to which I’d reply that this a) isn’t so, humans do sometimes opine unprompted and that b) that i’d rather anthropomorphise in the sense of treating animals as imbued with human traits rather than treat humans as glorified machines. This is a matter of arbitrary (you may say) choice on my part, and I will not offer an argument for it, at least not now—hence the caps bold.
Once again, many thanks for enlightening me and apologies if the first post had misunderstood your comment, i hope now I am more on the ball!
Best Wishes, Looking forward to an answer from you! Haris
whoops, scrap my previous answer, especially the first point. I now see that you were referring to a specific quote. Let me see.
Ah, yes, you may be right that I may have equivocated in the quote you cite, that it may have been more precise had I used the shorthand LLMs. So thanks for your charity!
However, I would like to point out that the fact that you can find something either trivially true or trivially false, under a binary logic may leave the proposition itself as not trivial at all under a different interpretation, no? I mean it’s significant that it is not trivially true, it already has two interpretations. But ok, that’s an aside that i’m not interested much in, and I think you may not be interested in it either.
And now your request for a meaningful definition suddenly makes a lot of sense too!!!! I think what I was trying to express is revealed by ‘on their own’. I mean that whereas humans (and maybe animals, though not 100% sure, as i state in my caps bold letters, i may be guilty of anthropomorphism) may sometimes do as others do, and at other times do as they please (judge, choose, etc), LLMs only have one of these options (at the time of writing i may have thought that LLMs don’t judge-opine etc without prompts—to which of course you can reply that humans always do so too (to which I’d reply that this a) isn’t so, humans do sometimes opine unprompted and that b) that i’d rather anthropomorphise in the sense of treating animals as imbued with human traits rather than treat humans as glorified machines. This is a matter of arbitrary (you may say) choice on my part, and I will not offer an argument for it, at least not now—hence the caps bold.
Once again, many thanks for enlightening me and apologies if the first post had misunderstood your comment, i hope now I am more on the ball!
Best Wishes,
Looking forward to an answer from you!
Haris