What? I literally wrote:

> I know that this is just an edge case

I'm sorry that sharing my enjoyment of this bug is tiring to you. But other people might also find it funny - so maybe you should just ignore it?

I enjoy the bug too. I’m just tired of people talking about ChatGPT as if it was a human or otherwise sentient being. That’s all.

How would you like me to change my previous message to not offend you? I genuinely don't know, since my explicit notice beforehand wasn't enough. Or do you really want me to just not express my thoughts?

I wasn’t offended in any way, shape or form. I don’t want you to change your previous message. It’s all good.

On the subject of being tiresome.

Pot, kettle, black.

Per HN's Guidelines[1]:

"Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously..."

"Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something. "

[1] - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Being kind involves using words like please. I was not snarky and if I came across that way I apologize. I am curious why people keep doing this even though I might not have conversed it that way.

You have to include more answers to the anticipated five whys: "why why why why why" for your response to be useful.

Just curious, why do you think it's easier to change others' behavior rather than your response to it?

I’m not following

They are saying it is easier to teach yourself to not mind something rather than to try to convince other people not to do it.

How would that lead to any kind of discussion? With this logic, everybody would ignore things they disagree with and only comment on things they agree with. Maybe I misunderstood the comment.

I can't answer your question, I was just clarifying what they meant.

Some level of anthropomorphism seems expected, especially, in the context of a product called “chat” and with the focus on the conversational aspect.

Fair point

I understand where you're coming from, but I'm curious to know when do you think anthropomorphism or personification of an AI would be justified, and if the answer is never then what is the reasoning behind it?

I’m honestly not sure, but comparing an LLM to a child or a «junior developer» is becoming a trope at this point. I think we can have interesting discussions around its capabilities without reducing advanced technology down to these leaky abstractions.