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.”

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.)

? 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.

the answers they give are generally more useful than the shortest possible answer. Will you acknowledge that 'they are designed to spend as many tokens as possible' is false?