This sounds like the kind of well-intentioned thinking that results in products that are no safer practically but are far more unpleasant to interact with. This is like the pop up every time I start my car that reminds me I should not play with the screen while I’m driving.
The annoyance of every AI announcing is a machine every time it’s invoked is obvious. I don’t see any basis offered for this actually doing anything beneficial.
What does it even mean ”do not mimick humans”? How are the AI supposed to reply if I ask ”do you think this genserver will be a bottleneck in the sync process and how can we fix it?”
The correct answer would sound just like a human unless you either make it do shallow annoying stuff like add redundant ”as an LLM I can’t think or recommend but the answer with the highest probability is …”
More "Star Trek computer" and less C3PO would be a start.
We all know the "voice" of log output of normal, non-LLM computer programs. Usually, the statements are in passive voice and tersely describe what the program is doing or print new kind of data available. An LLM with that style would already sound much more like a computer program than a person.
E.g. an answer to your example prompt could be something like:
* Locating relevant code for "genserver" and "sync" in the codebase...
* Reading files...
* Data collection completed. Analysis results are as follows:
* Factors that suggest a bottleneck are:
- ...
* Factors that speak against a bottleneck are:
- ...
* Overall assessment:
- ...
* Request complete.
Computers long have always, before LLMs, and most still do do output responses that don't sound like humans. It's hard to understand why you think that's hard.
It is a matter of definition, but a start would be eliminating the social and conversational aspects and attempts at emotional connection.
