<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>devjab</author><text>I’m not sure about that part about most people. We obviously come from different anecdotal stories, but in my business, which is non-tech enterprise, nobody views GPT as “thinking”. People generally see it as a “better Google”.&lt;p&gt;Our main issue is with people thinking it’s answers are actual factual. And while it’ll obviously get things right most of the time, we’re really struggling with how much our employees trust it. That and the data privacy, but that’s a different story that will eventually get solved once AzureGPT for Enterprise kicks off.&lt;p&gt;Another “interesting” issue is how GPT will sometimes “comment” texts if you don’t prompt it correctly. We had someone who asked GPT to correct the grammar in some contract, and it did. It also added some comments on how part of what was written was “impressive”. Which would have been extremely hilarious if it had been an internal thing, but our lovely employee didn’t proof read the proof read and actually sent the contract draft out to a customer. Luckily a good humoured customer who took it with a laugh, but hell, that’s going to be a nightmare going forward.</text><parent_chain><item><author>rjzzleep</author><text>I actually think you&amp;#x27;re wrong. I just had a discussion about this with a friend who was infinitely excited about it and felt I was being extremely dismissive when I said writing agent guidelines is very much akin to micromanaging an extremely cheap outsourcing company.&lt;p&gt;MOST people actually think ChatGPT is actual, sentient thinking. We&amp;#x27;re kind of the minority in this story.</text></item><item><author>thih9</author><text>I guess most people don&amp;#x27;t understand &amp;quot;chatgpt thinking&amp;quot; as actual, sentient thinking. It&amp;#x27;s just easier to call it this way.&lt;p&gt;Similarly, when a computer (a glorified abacus) is taking extra long when processing large amount of data, I&amp;#x27;d say it&amp;#x27;s &amp;quot;thinking hard&amp;quot;. When an iPhone (a glorified small computer) detects a WiFi signal, I&amp;#x27;d say that it &amp;quot;sees WiFi&amp;quot;.&lt;p&gt;Also note that we&amp;#x27;ve been doing anthropomorphism ever since a crow dropped some cheese[1], and earlier than that too.&lt;p&gt;[1]: &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;wiki&amp;#x2F;The_Fox_and_the_Crow_(Aesop)&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;wiki&amp;#x2F;The_Fox_and_the_Crow_(Aesop)&lt;/a&gt;</text></item><item><author>anileated</author><text>Describing a glorified autocomplete as “thinking” is wrong on many levels; it devalues human consciousness, it attributes to a software tool qualities that it does not possess, and has implications for the entire AI industry.&lt;p&gt;If we are to  believe an LLM is &lt;i&gt;at least&lt;/i&gt; sentient and intelligent on par with an octopus, much less a human, then we have a moral imperative to fight for LLMs to be recognized as protected sentient thinking beings with awareness and agency and admit that AI industry is built on systematic abuse of those beings.&lt;p&gt;Of course, no one does it, because it would be ridiculous. It’s time to admit that people who insist that LLMs “think” are simply trying to make ML seem mysterious and magical in an ill thought through (because see above) attempt to attract more VC money.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Finland&apos;s ChatGPT equivalent begins to think in Estonian as well</title><url>https://news.err.ee/1609120697/finland-s-chatgpt-equivalent-begins-to-think-in-estonian-as-well</url></story>
<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>cathalc</author><text>Anecdotally, I am yet to meet a single person, in or out of my professional life, who thinks ChatGPT is in any way sentient.</text><parent_chain><item><author>rjzzleep</author><text>I actually think you&amp;#x27;re wrong. I just had a discussion about this with a friend who was infinitely excited about it and felt I was being extremely dismissive when I said writing agent guidelines is very much akin to micromanaging an extremely cheap outsourcing company.&lt;p&gt;MOST people actually think ChatGPT is actual, sentient thinking. We&amp;#x27;re kind of the minority in this story.</text></item><item><author>thih9</author><text>I guess most people don&amp;#x27;t understand &amp;quot;chatgpt thinking&amp;quot; as actual, sentient thinking. It&amp;#x27;s just easier to call it this way.&lt;p&gt;Similarly, when a computer (a glorified abacus) is taking extra long when processing large amount of data, I&amp;#x27;d say it&amp;#x27;s &amp;quot;thinking hard&amp;quot;. When an iPhone (a glorified small computer) detects a WiFi signal, I&amp;#x27;d say that it &amp;quot;sees WiFi&amp;quot;.&lt;p&gt;Also note that we&amp;#x27;ve been doing anthropomorphism ever since a crow dropped some cheese[1], and earlier than that too.&lt;p&gt;[1]: &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;wiki&amp;#x2F;The_Fox_and_the_Crow_(Aesop)&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;wiki&amp;#x2F;The_Fox_and_the_Crow_(Aesop)&lt;/a&gt;</text></item><item><author>anileated</author><text>Describing a glorified autocomplete as “thinking” is wrong on many levels; it devalues human consciousness, it attributes to a software tool qualities that it does not possess, and has implications for the entire AI industry.&lt;p&gt;If we are to  believe an LLM is &lt;i&gt;at least&lt;/i&gt; sentient and intelligent on par with an octopus, much less a human, then we have a moral imperative to fight for LLMs to be recognized as protected sentient thinking beings with awareness and agency and admit that AI industry is built on systematic abuse of those beings.&lt;p&gt;Of course, no one does it, because it would be ridiculous. It’s time to admit that people who insist that LLMs “think” are simply trying to make ML seem mysterious and magical in an ill thought through (because see above) attempt to attract more VC money.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Finland&apos;s ChatGPT equivalent begins to think in Estonian as well</title><url>https://news.err.ee/1609120697/finland-s-chatgpt-equivalent-begins-to-think-in-estonian-as-well</url></story>