When is being mislead not a bad thing? In a perfect world, there would be none of that. Of course we don’t live in a utopia, but I’d prefer if we avoid spreading skewed understandings of anything at all as much as possible. It’s a matter of principle.
Nobody does this when people say their computer is “thinking” when it’s running slow, I just don’t see the necessity of pointing this out every time the topic is brought up.
Nobody thinks they are the same, some wonder if it can be made to do equivalent things. Nobody needs to hear that what they are doing isn’t thought for the same reason nobody needs to hear that my computer isn’t actually thinking when it’s running slow.
I don’t think this is true. People are out here having straight up AI psychosis. Do you really think there aren’t fools who believe their computer is actually thinking like a human?
Nobody does this when people say their computer is “thinking” when it’s running slow, I just don’t see the necessity of pointing this out every time the topic is brought up.
I agree it’s unnecessary to point out. Using anthropomorphising shorthand to talk about technology is extremely common, and AI is no different; saying an AI is “thinking” or whatever is fine. But there is a difference between using that language as shorthand, and actually holding misconceptions about what is really happening. So saying that it’s fine for someone to be misled and use that language is different than just saying the language makes sense to use.
What exactly is the harm in people being mislead in this way, as long as they still know about the risks of hallucination, in your eyes?
When is being mislead not a bad thing? In a perfect world, there would be none of that. Of course we don’t live in a utopia, but I’d prefer if we avoid spreading skewed understandings of anything at all as much as possible. It’s a matter of principle.
Nobody does this when people say their computer is “thinking” when it’s running slow, I just don’t see the necessity of pointing this out every time the topic is brought up.
Ideally people who say that aren’t misled into believing their computer is thinking in the same way that a human is
Nobody thinks they are the same, some wonder if it can be made to do equivalent things. Nobody needs to hear that what they are doing isn’t thought for the same reason nobody needs to hear that my computer isn’t actually thinking when it’s running slow.
I don’t think this is true. People are out here having straight up AI psychosis. Do you really think there aren’t fools who believe their computer is actually thinking like a human?
Having an inaccurate view about something so fundamental to the topic leads you to predict reality incorrectly and make bad decisions
Nobody does this when people say their computer is “thinking” when it’s running slow, I just don’t see the necessity of pointing this out every time the topic is brought up.
I agree it’s unnecessary to point out. Using anthropomorphising shorthand to talk about technology is extremely common, and AI is no different; saying an AI is “thinking” or whatever is fine. But there is a difference between using that language as shorthand, and actually holding misconceptions about what is really happening. So saying that it’s fine for someone to be misled and use that language is different than just saying the language makes sense to use.