lol “seemingly amazing” means not amazing at all.

He didn’t literally say it but the comment implies it is worthless as does yours.

Humans dont “buy it” when they think something is worthless. The tonality is bent this way.

He could have said, “this is amazingly useful data but we need more” but of course it doesn’t read like this at all thanks to the first paragraph. Let’s not hallucinate it into something it’s not with wordplay. The comment is highly negative.

You seem very emotionally involved in this. It says "an LLM doing something amazing". That's the sentence. Later the term "seemingly amazing" is used. Implying that it _seems amazing_. Anything beyond that is your personal interpretation. Do you disagree that there is an excess of cherrypicked LLM examples getting anthropomorphized? Yeah, it did a cool thing. Yes, llms doing single cool things are everywhere. Yes, I well be more convinced of its impact when i see it tested more widely.

I am emotionally involved in the sense that I disagree and dislike the tone. The core of my post is addressing tonality and thus emotions is the topic of my post. I’m emotionally involved in the same way it’s normal for humans to have emotions. If you can’t see this then you don’t have the rationality or emotional capacity to understand what I am saying.

> Anything beyond that is your personal interpretation.

Not true. In the context of that post when something is implied that it only seems amazing it also implies that it is likely not amazing. That is a common human interpretation. I find if you’re not interpreting it that way your emotions are influencing your interpretation.

> Do you disagree that there is an excess of cherrypicked LLM examples getting anthropomorphized?

I disagree. I think everybody is doing the opposite and cherry-picking the instances where the LLM gets stuff wrong and saying LLMs are garbage because of that and ignoring the instances where it gets shit right and classifying that instance as regurgitation.

You’re not being rational here by bringing up anthropomorphization. We are mainly talking about correctness. If an aspect of LLM intelligence is similar to humans in generating correct data then anthropomorphizing it is the way to go. Whether it’s anthropomorphizing something is completely orthogonal to the problem. We are talking about correct results. If anthropomorphizing something gets us there… who cares? Human intelligence works and it’s even reasonable to believe LLMs think like humans because they are literally trained on human data.

The act of even mentioning anthropomorphization without mentioning correctness is irrational and illogical.