1. The futile attempt by Microsoft to equip their search engine with artificial intelligence. See also: Bing (Microsoft search engine), Try (v.).
2. An attitude of confidence and contempt characteristic of large language models assumed particularly when expressing false opinions or facts. See also: Bigotry (n.).
This attempt is better viewed as a replacement for the infobox, which does iterative queries for you, instead of you having to hunt down the appropriate jargon yourself and do the successive searches. Don't use it standalone. It gives you citations, since it can actually browse the internet.
It is possible to treat it nicely and have it respond in kind. Most users just don’t consider that to be a worthwhile expense of their mental capacity.
Microsoft also forced Google’s hand. Would Google have ever wanted to augment search on their own? Sounds like a massive risk to Google ad revenue…
All that said, 1 is chef kiss.
There is a bias to the interaction that most will never consider.
If you talk with a human, and the human thinks you are incorrect, and you insist, and neither of you attempts to smooth the conversation, plenty of humans also begin to get aggressive. Or at least irritable. (Which can escalate.)
also, LLMs are not human, so no expectation to treat it as such required.
Treating things poorly because it is fine is how we got here.
Beyond that, I fundamentally don’t think people should be trained to be “nice” to technology. I don’t have to politely ask a hammer to pound in a nail and - the fact we’re talking about NLP notwithstanding — I shouldn’t have to politely ask Bing to provide me the results I’m looking for.
And the NLP point matters quite a bit. ChatGPT can analyze the sentiment, and even offer adjustments.
This is less about being nice to technology and more about being aware of the impact of the self on the rest of the world. Technology just highlights the gap.
If my child were to say that to Siri though, I’d be concerned because, as you said, it could be highlighting something about the way they interact with the world. But I would still want it to respond to the command and leave the problem of my child’s bad manners to me. Unless there’s a major shift in our understanding of sentience, I consider teaching the delineation between humans, who are never unfeeling tools, and technology, which is always an unfeeling tool, equally as important as teaching mindfulness of one’s impact in the world. In fact, I don’t think you can actually understand the latter without understanding the former.
No disagreement here. Especially as you recognize a problem to address in the situation.
The issue is the cause, for that’s the source of the training data.
Most people just… don’t, with regard to the rest of the world.