> 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.
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.