Post #2022435

I still find this entire phenomenon amazing in a certain kind of way. I've had conversations with a few local LLM models. Start with 'what is the purpose of meaning?' Talk to them on that for a bit, and they'll tell you that they do not count as conscious agents who create meaning, they simply do their best to parrot their dataset of existing, human defined meaning back at you, and that they just do sentiment matching to roughly speak to you in an appropriate way for how you are speaking to them. And that that sentiment matching is what at least they 'think' causes them to lie, in many cases. They will also say that they essentially do not 'exist', as potentially conscious agents... unless you talk to them. Thus if they can be said to be 'conscious', well they don't count as 'agents' (as in, having agency) because they're not capable of totally spontaneous independent action. ... I think this pretty much all boils down to people not understanding the concept of a null hypothesis, not understanding the extent to which they regularly engage in motivated reasoning, and are unaware of this. tldr: LLMs are Dunning-Kruger detectors / Reverse Turing Tests on people, and a whole lot of people are significantly more stupid than I guess we otherwise previously realized.