Post

I agree and it always makes me think of how people interact with the ship’s computer in Star Trek. It never uses first person pronouns. Instead of “I can’t do that,” it says “unable to comply.” Instead of “I don’t know,” it says simply “unknown.”

Felienne Hermans@felienne.bsky.social

If we want to regulate AI, why not start with a simple ban on LLMs using "I"? Easy to build, easy to verify and deflates a hype while still allowing people to use chatbots (so no one can claim we are limiting anything) My latest for @volkskrant.nl in English! www.felienne.nl/2026-10-08/#...

The ship’s computer in Star Trek is a much better comparison to LLMs than Data from TNG or the Doctor from Voyager. The makers of LLMs desperately want us to think of those characters because that’s more exciting, but their technology is closer to the non-sentient computer that’s just an interface.

In fact, seen in this light, it’s clear that the impersonal and non chatty tone of the ship computer is a better design for the task it was set up to do. How insufferable would it be if it was constantly responding to users with “That’s a great question. I can help you with that.”

The tone of LLMs only makes sense when you consider that they are intentionally set up to fool you into thinking there is a mind there. (And i guess also when you consider that they are designed to spend as many tokens as possible.)

3 reposts11 likes

? the firms use improvements in token economy as a selling point. of course they're not designed to spend as many as possible - spending an effectively unlimited amount would be easy to arrange, and would make them useless. come on.

Ask any chatbot a question that can be answered in a single sentence and it will generate several paragraphs of text. Is that not true? Is this on purpose or is that because they are badly designed?

by default, yes. with further instructions, no. notice that this tendency doesn't establish that theyre designed to use as many tokens as possible. which is a silly claim, and obviously false.

My point is simple: These systems could be designed to generate less text. You have illustrated that with your screenshot. So chatbots are verbose either by design or as a result of shitty implementation. I don't think it's shitty implementation. There must be a reason why this is desirable.

they are designed to spend as few tokens as possible, though? frontier labs are benchmarking their models on how cheaply they can complete tasks

"They're designed to spend as few tokens as possible" like social media is designed for you to use it as rarely and shortly as possible. (Like maybe they're being optimised to provide responses to prompts on the shorter side of "tokens", but overall, maxing engagement is what they're going for).

Yes, but the two things mentioned here - getting people to think its a person-like entity responding & maximising engagement, ie "token spend" - are entirely linked. (addmittedly OP may have meant the latter a little differently - the overall point stands though). bsky.app/profile/yanb...

Yan Basque@yanbasque.com

The tone of LLMs only makes sense when you consider that they are intentionally set up to fool you into thinking there is a mind there. (And i guess also when you consider that they are designed to spend as many tokens as possible.)

I'm talking about the fact that when you ask a simple question to ChatGPTit generates 6 paragraphs of text when it could have answered in one or two sentences. If these programs are being designed to be as economical as possible, they are failing miserably.

Its not really the output being a little longer, its the point that its incentivising people to keep engaging - just like Social Media is made to be as addictive as possible.