That's the correct impression though.

I think what's causing a lot of damage is not attributing more of human attributes (though carefully). It's not the LLM marketing you have to worry about - that's just noise. All marketing is malicious lies and abusive bullshit, AI marketing is no different.

Care about engineering - designing and securing systems. There, the refusal to anthropomorphise LLMs is doing a lot of damage and wasted efforts, with good chunk of the industry believing in "lethal trifecta" as if it were the holy Trinity, and convinced it's something that can be solved without losing all that makes LLMs useful in the first place. A little bit of anthropomorphising LLMs, squinting your eyes and seeing them as little people on a chip, will immediately tell you these "bugs" and "vulnerabilities" are just inseparable facets of the features we care about, fundamental to general-purpose tools, and they can be mitigated and worked around (at a cost), but not solved, not any more you can solve "social engineering" or better code your employees so they're impervious to coercion or bribery, or being prompt-injected by a phone call from their loved one.

Except I actually mean to infer the concept of adding things from examples. LLMs are amply capable of applying concepts to data that matches patterns not ever expressed in the training data. It’s called inference for a reason.

Anthropomorphic descriptions are the most expressive because of the fact that LLMs based on human cultural output mimic human behaviours, intrinsically. Other terminology is not nearly as expressive when describing LLM output.

Pattern matching is the same as saying text prediction. While being technically truthy, it fails to convey the external effect. Anthropomorphic terms, while being less truthy overall, do manage to effectively convey the external effect. It does unfortunately imply an internal cause that does not follow, but the externalities are what matter in most non-philosophical contexts.