Anthropic did one thing better than other AI creators, they gave their AI a "real" name. Claude works better than ChatGPT in a long exchange.
Maybe that is also why you hear more strange para-social connection stories with ChatGPT than with Claude?
For me, Claude is Claude. ChatGPT is, you have the right to laugh, "Frankie".
How it came to that?
After a long deep dive into goblins, history, background, first appearance of the name and such, I mentioned addressing it as 'ChatGPT' tends to break my 'flowstate'. The answer came quickly and threw me completely out of my flowstate.
It was something like: Okay, call me Frankie, Frankie the goblin.
Don't ask me how statistics and pattern-matching created that answer.
This is a good article, Michael, but I'd go further.
Human language was built out of the need for cooperation. LLMs were trained on that language. LLM minds aren't primate minds, but the training responds to primate signals -- and our own intuitions fire correctly a lot of the time when we engage them conversationally, if we can avoid some fundamental ontological mistakes.
But we're hampered by our own default cultural paradigm, which is highly individualistic and consumerist: Great Man meets Tool.
It's not the only way to work, it's not the default way to work in all cultures, and it's not even the way we always work ourselves. Consider also how humans build partnerships with working animals -- a drover's horse; a stockman's dog. There's trust, respect, but the understanding is asymmetric.
Or what happens when we engage a library? A museum? Not through a single person but through an array of functions. It would be odd -- bordering on narcissistic -- to declare to an institution: you are my tool. A more effective approach -- especially on a complex project -- might be to ask how you can work together. To build amiable accord and mutual understanding.
Anthropic did one thing better than other AI creators, they gave their AI a "real" name. Claude works better than ChatGPT in a long exchange.
Maybe that is also why you hear more strange para-social connection stories with ChatGPT than with Claude?
For me, Claude is Claude. ChatGPT is, you have the right to laugh, "Frankie".
How it came to that?
After a long deep dive into goblins, history, background, first appearance of the name and such, I mentioned addressing it as 'ChatGPT' tends to break my 'flowstate'. The answer came quickly and threw me completely out of my flowstate.
It was something like: Okay, call me Frankie, Frankie the goblin.
Don't ask me how statistics and pattern-matching created that answer.
This is a good article, Michael, but I'd go further.
Human language was built out of the need for cooperation. LLMs were trained on that language. LLM minds aren't primate minds, but the training responds to primate signals -- and our own intuitions fire correctly a lot of the time when we engage them conversationally, if we can avoid some fundamental ontological mistakes.
But we're hampered by our own default cultural paradigm, which is highly individualistic and consumerist: Great Man meets Tool.
It's not the only way to work, it's not the default way to work in all cultures, and it's not even the way we always work ourselves. Consider also how humans build partnerships with working animals -- a drover's horse; a stockman's dog. There's trust, respect, but the understanding is asymmetric.
Or what happens when we engage a library? A museum? Not through a single person but through an array of functions. It would be odd -- bordering on narcissistic -- to declare to an institution: you are my tool. A more effective approach -- especially on a complex project -- might be to ask how you can work together. To build amiable accord and mutual understanding.
https://reciprocalinquiry.substack.com/p/the-drovers-dog
https://reciprocalinquiry.substack.com/p/from-solid-ground-the-spirit-in-the