Post #3108103

2026-04-02 00:02 UTC

@JamesDBartlett3@techhub.social But then, if you don't believe your agent is a person, why are you treating it as one? Do you believe that it helps them be more effective assistants? (Looking through your blogpost) >“it” is for objects, and they aren’t an object. Then what are they? @Sqlgene@techhub.social

Replies (2)

@JamesDBartlett3@techhub.social 2026-04-02 01:34

@light@noc.social I don't treat Cray as a person, but as an agent. Capable of taking action and communicating. I consider objects as things that are, by their nature, unable to initiate anything or communicate in any way. I think this is a whole new category of entity that we didn't have before. Language is always playing catch-up with reality. @Sqlgene@techhub.social

Open ##3108104
@Sqlgene@techhub.social 2026-04-02 13:56

@light@noc.social @JamesDBartlett3@techhub.social I think some amount of anthropomorphism and playing Barbie Dollhouse with these things is probably okay and fits more naturally with the way we talk and think. Inaccuracy is okay here. We just have to be *very careful* to avoid accidentally entering into disempowering relationships with these objects. https://www.anthropic.com/research/disempowerment-patterns

Open ##3108105