It seems a reasonable shorthand, to me at least. Ie if we consider it as a function with input you define, well normally that input in sanitized to prevent hack

It seems a reasonable shorthand, to me at least. Ie if we consider it as a function with input you define, well normally that input in sanitized to prevent hacking/etc. In this case the sanitization process is so broad you could easily summarize it as "aligned with my interests", no? Ie i can't come close to easily enumerating all the seemingly near infinite ways that hooking up this chatbot into my network with code exec permissions might compromise me. Yea it's a dumb autocomplete right now, but it's an exceptionally powerful autocomplete that can write viruses and do all sorts of insane and powerful things. I can give you a function run on my network of `fn foo(i32)` and feel safe about it. However `fn foo(Chatgpt)` is unsafe in ways i not only can't enumerate, i can't even imagine many of them. I get your offense seems to be around the implied intelligence that "aligned with human interests" seems to give it.. but while i think we all agree it's definitely not a Duck right now, when it walks talks and acts like a Duck.. well, are we surprised that our natural language sounds as if it's a Duck?