> I don't get the ethical side of AI. That is clear from your comment. These are tools. Complicated ones at that. Depending on how it is designed can cause m

> I don't get the ethical side of AI. That is clear from your comment. These are tools. Complicated ones at that. Depending on how it is designed can cause more or less harm to people. Some of the harms are more direct and obvious, while others can be less so. AI ethics is about studying the harms, and investigating what choices can be made during design time, training time, and usage time to lessen them. > I have a voice activated box ... Great story. What does it have to do with the topic at hand? > [weapons], is still a tool and neutral as the tool is unaware of the intended use Weapons are not ethically neutral. You can design weapons which have more collateral damage and you can design weapons which have less. There are scatterable landmines which are famously attractive to children. They look like toys! They also cannot be disarmed and remain dangerous for years after deployment. There are also scatterable landmines which have sophisticated detection circuitry to only detonate when a tank is passing by. They don't get triggered by humans on foot, they don't even get triggered by civilian vehicles. Furthermore they are programmed to deactivate after a preset period has passed reliably. The second of these weapons is designed to be more ethical. Yes, both are designed to kill people but the designers of the second one went out of their way to kill only the ones they intend to. This is how ethics looks like in the context of weapon building. > When these models are trained, I am not a big fan of them being corralled or limited. Everything from how the model is constructed, how the training set is assembled, to what metrics are checked during evaluation are "corralling" or "limiting" them. There is no "raw neutral" state of such a model. What you are asking for, the "un-corraled" or "un-limited" LLM, does not exit, and is not a coherent thing to ask for.