Yes. The person (s) who set the llm/ai up.

How are we meant to have these conversations if people keep complaining about the personification of LLMs without offering alternative phrasing? Showing up and complaining without offering a solution is just that, complaining. Do something about it. What do YOU think we should call the active context a model has access to without personifying it or overtechnicalizing the phrasing and rendering it useless to laymen, @neclimdul@lemmy.world?

In the same sense I'd describe Othello-GPT's internal world model of the board as 'board', yes.

Also, "top of mind" is a common idiom and I guess I didn't feel the need to be overly pedantic about it, especially given the last year and a half of research around model capabilities for introspection of control vectors, coherence in self modeling, etc.

Let's be generous for a moment and assume good intent, how else would you describe the situation where the llm doesn't consider a negative response to its actions due to its training and context being limited?

Sure it gives the llm a more human like persona, but so far I've yet to read a better way to describing its behaviour, it is designed to emulate human behavior so using human descriptors helps convey the intent.