That said these are large language models, you are guiding the output through vector space with your input, and so you really do have to leverage language to get the results you want. You don't have to believe it has emotions or feels anything for that to still be true.
If anything, it's been fantastic to have an "interlocutor" that is vastly capable of producing possible solutions without emotional bias, superfluous flourishes, or having to endure personal proclivities or eccentricities.
Taking that into account allows you to get better responses from the tool. It's not sentient, but it also is more complicated than bytecode.
If the tool being used generates fantastical fiction that isn't supported by factual data or verifiable systems, then eventually that falsehood will bubble to the surface; whether that is immediate (parsed through my own bullshit-meter) , the near future (during an agent-session that reveals itself to be a hallucination) or in the long-run (production bug/tech debt).
It's not my job to get an ideal "emotional" response from a machine. It's my job to deliver deterministic results with minimal fuck ups.
Emotion has no place in this exchange. If I don't know something, aren't I expected to admit it? And then do the work to subdue the knowledge to bring it under my domain?
Factual knowledge does not cease to exist because someone's in a bad mood....
If it is your job to get deterministic results, this is a tool in the toolbox to do that and your original approach has been shown (see the results in this paper) to generate worse outcomes.
It's an insane perspective I'm taking I know....call me crazy. /s
edit: the fact that humans are going out of their way to type or speak some sort of emotional content into their prompting is beyond me. Why would I waste time typing out a pronoun to a large-language model agent? Why would I do the lazy intellectual thing and blur the line between pure factual communication of concepts by expressing emotional content to a machine? What are we doing, folks?