Post #2869172

2026-05-19 06:38 UTC

This is a semantic argument, they obviously means it emulates compassion better than a real human, and given its issue with sycophancy this is undoubtedly true, even to a fault. There’s no need to do this every time someone says an ai thinks or does some humany thing, everyone gets it, the language for saying these things is just clunky.

Replies (3)

@everett@lemmy.ml 2026-05-19 11:29

everyone gets it Disagree, plenty of people still need to hear it.

Open ##2886212
@binux@sh.itjust.works 2026-05-19 12:16

How is it a semantic argument? They're talking about how LLMs work on a functional level, not arguing the meaning of compassion itself. It's not hard to say that they *emulate* compassion and intelligence relatively well, applying human adjectives without any nuance just opens it up to being misinterpreted by people who don't know any better.

Open ##3092737
@Halcyon@discuss.tchncs.de 2026-05-19 11:34

It's not semantic – it's completely different things happening if there's real consciousness and compassion present based on lifeforms on one hand or a mere simulation of that in form of a text output on the other hand that only superficially looks like there's something intelligent. People regularly fall for the illusion and project their own feelings into the machine while reading the text output of an LLM. Many are not capable of differentiating and the chatbots are designed in a way to make it more and more difficult to recognize synthetic output. Humans are good in projecting their own feelings into things they see, just look at all the cat or dog owners who believe they can read the thoughts of their "babies" from their facial expressions.

Open ##3092738