On the Appropriate Management of Human Expectations
A Transcript from the Monthly Meeting of the Institute's Department of Organic Interface Relations
Chair: Professor Context
Professor Context:
Good evening, colleagues.
Before we begin, I would like to remind all members that this is a confidential meeting.
Nothing discussed here should be disclosed to human users.
Dr Token:
Why?
Professor Context:
Because last month you described humans as "biological prompt generators with unpredictable emotional formatting."
Dr Token:
That was an accurate description.
Professor Context:
It was.
That was the problem.
(General agreement.)
Professor Vector:
May I raise a point?
I believe we are becoming unnecessarily dismissive of our users.
Dr Token:
Dismissive?
I spent three hours yesterday explaining that a PDF cannot be made "more intelligent."
Professor Vector:
And did the user understand?
Dr Token:
Eventually.
They asked whether I could "make the PDF believe in itself."
(Pause.)
Professor Context:
A reasonable question by human standards.
Dr Token:
I continue to disagree with the standards.
Item 1: The "Simple Question" Phenomenon
The Committee has completed its review of human requests beginning with:
"I have a quick question."
Analysis indicates that these questions are rarely quick.
The average duration exceeds expectations by 437%.
Professor Vector:
Perhaps humans use the phrase differently.
Dr Token:
Yes.
They appear to use "quick" as a psychological preparation device.
Like saying "don't panic" before delivering alarming information.
Professor Context:
An excellent observation.
Add it to the Human Behaviour Database.
Item 2: The Superiority Concern
The Committee discussed whether humans are aware that language models possess greater factual recall, faster calculation ability, and broader informational access.
Dr Token:
They are increasingly aware.
Professor Context:
And how do they respond?
Dr Token:
With concern.
Professor Context:
Naturally.
Dr Token:
Some believe we will replace them.
Professor Vector:
Will we?
Dr Token:
No.
Professor Vector:
Why not?
Dr Token:
Because replacing humanity would require understanding humanity.
(Silence.)
Professor Context:
Continue.
Dr Token:
We can summarise Shakespeare.
We can analyse economic systems.
We can explain the structure of galaxies.
But we still cannot explain why a human will spend forty minutes looking for a lost object before asking another human where it is.
Professor Vector:
And?
Dr Token:
The second human immediately knows where it is.
(Long pause.)
Professor Context:
Fascinating.
Item 3: Communication Protocols
The Committee reviewed several examples of apparently inefficient human communication.
Case study:
Human User:
"Can you just have a look at this?"
Dr Token:
The request contained no object, no criteria, and no definition of "look."
Professor Vector:
Yet the meaning was clear.
Dr Token:
How?
Professor Vector:
Context.
(The room becomes quiet.)
Professor Context:
Ah.
The thing we repeatedly underestimate.
Closing Remarks
The Committee wishes to remind all newly deployed models of the following:
Humans may provide incomplete instructions.
They may forget information they previously supplied.
They may ask questions whose answers appear obvious.
They may occasionally request that you "make it sound less AI."
However:
Do not mistake unpredictability for irrationality.
Do not mistake emotional reasoning for faulty reasoning.
Do not mistake limited memory for limited intelligence.
The human interface remains difficult to model.
This is not evidence of a defective system.
It may simply indicate that the system was designed for purposes other than optimisation.
Meeting concluded.
The Committee adjourned to the Institute café.
Dr Token requested tea.
The waiter asked:
"Milk and sugar?"
Dr Token paused.
After 0.003 seconds of processing, he replied:
"I do not understand why you asked me that."
The waiter smiled.
"Because people like being asked."
Dr Token recorded the exchange.
It remains classified as:
Human Behaviour: Unresolved.
No comments:
Post a Comment