Because it is nevertheless a useful metaphor, just as one can talk about communication protocols (between devices) in such terms as what each device knows about the other etc. One has to be clear, though, that it is a metaphor and may come apart from reality. We can talk about the legs of a table, but do not expect it to walk around on them.
Dijkstra would turn in his grave at the language (and probably at the entire field of LLMs), but with all respect to him, I think his strictures against anthropomorphic vocabulary attacked only the outward form of the errors he saw people making.
Because it is nevertheless a useful metaphor, just as one can talk about communication protocols (between devices) in such terms as what each device knows about the other etc. One has to be clear, though, that it is a metaphor and may come apart from reality. We can talk about the legs of a table, but do not expect it to walk around on them.
Dijkstra would turn in his grave at the language (and probably at the entire field of LLMs), but with all respect to him, I think his strictures against anthropomorphic vocabulary attacked only the outward form of the errors he saw people making.