The usage of "greater" is also interesting. It's like they are trying to say better, but greater is a geographic term and doesn't mean "better" instead it's closer to "wider" or "covers more area."
Perhaps they are/were going for stealth therapy-bot with this.
Empathy done well seems like 1:1 mapping at an emotional level, but that doesn’t imply to me that it couldn’t be done at a different level of modeling. Empathy can be done poorly, and then it is projecting.
Does one of these have a higher EQ, despite both being ink and paper and definitely not sentient?
Now, imagine they were produced by two different AIs. Does one AI demonstrate higher EQ?
The trick is in seeing that “EQ of a text response” is not the same thing as “EQ of a sentient being”
This is a designed system. The designers make choices. I don’t see how failing to plan and design for a common use case would be better.
= not to say that the people that work on AI are not incredibly talented, but more that it's not human
trainimg it topretend to be a feelingless robot or sympathetic mother are both weird to me. it should state facts with us.
You are confusing a specific geographical sense of “greater” (e.g. “greater New York”) with the generic sense of “greater” which just means “more great”. In “7 is greater than 6”, “greater” isn’t geographic
The difference between “greater” and “better”, is “greater” just means “more than”, without implying any value judgement-“better” implies the “more than” is a good thing: “The Holocaust had a greater death toll than the Armenian genocide” is an obvious fact, but only a horrendously evil person would use “better” in that sentence (excluding of course someone who accidentally misspoke, or a non-native speaker mixing up words)