You probably should have used semantics to communicate if you wanted your semantics to be unambiguous. Instead you used mere syntax and hoped that the reader would assign the same semantics that you had used. (This is apropos because language models also use syntax alone and have no semantics.)
I understand where you’re coming from, but I don’t agree it’s about semantics; it’s about devaluation of communication. LLMs and their makers threaten that in multiple ways. Thinking of it as “lying” is one of them.
OK sure. I was just using the wording from the article to make a point, I wasn’t trying to get into a discussion about whether “lying” requires intent.
Don’t really care to argue about the semantics. It’s clear what I meant.
To you I’m sure it is crystal clear. I’m just on the other end of communication.
You probably should have used semantics to communicate if you wanted your semantics to be unambiguous. Instead you used mere syntax and hoped that the reader would assign the same semantics that you had used. (This is apropos because language models also use syntax alone and have no semantics.)
I understand where you’re coming from, but I don’t agree it’s about semantics; it’s about devaluation of communication. LLMs and their makers threaten that in multiple ways. Thinking of it as “lying” is one of them.
OK sure. I was just using the wording from the article to make a point, I wasn’t trying to get into a discussion about whether “lying” requires intent.