3 ms·

You aren't answering my question. I asked about the relationship between 'is it dangerous?' and 'is it AI?' Some relationship between these questions was sugg

You aren't answering my question. I asked about the relationship between 'is it dangerous?' and 'is it AI?' Some relationship between these questions was suggested by you in the comment I responded to above: > "The current generation of work is not AI. [THEREFORE?] The risks it poses are minimal. You cannot hurt me with an LLM." and again suggested by this remark: > "we are no where close to artificial intelligence (current generation is content generation, no logic, no truth) and [THEREFORE?] it poses no risk." You seems to be claiming that LLMs aren't dangerous because they aren't AI. Does the set of dangerous things belong to the set of AI? Pipe bombs and pit vipers aren't AI, so does that mean they aren't dangerous? They are, therefore the set of all dangerous things does not belong to the set of AI. Why then is "The current generation of work is not AI" thought to support the assertion that LLMs cannot be dangerous? I think it could be reasonable for you to assert that LLMs have not yet been demonstrated to be dangerous enough to warrant regulation. But that's not what was asserted above; you asserted that LLMs cannot hurt people, and the supporting argument seems to be 'because they aren't real AI'. That is simply illogical. Whether or not LLMs are sci-fi tier AI is irrelevant; it has absolutely no bearing on whether or not LLMs are dangerous. tl;dr: Rattlesnakes aren't AI, therefore rattlesnakes can't hurt me.

carom 3y ago
You're arguing a complete straw man. Please read the sentence before the one you are hyper focused on. I am taking a position against everything about the current narrative. 1) Calling the current generation of tech AI. 2) The idea that AI is dangerous. 3) The conclusion that regulation is required. You're hallucinating some causality in the statements that isn't written. It has not been demonstrated that AI (AGI) will be dangerous. Further, LMMs are not AI. LLMs have also not been demonstrated to be dangerous. We do not need to give OpenAI (Microsoft) regulatory capture.
- George83728 3y ago
  So your objection to LLMs being called AI is a non sequitur and has nothing to do with your objection to LLMs being regulated? That's not the impression I got from either of your comments.

carom 3y ago

You're arguing a complete straw man. Please read the sentence before the one you are hyper focused on. I am taking a position against everything about the current narrative. 1) Calling the current generation of tech AI. 2) The idea that AI is dangerous. 3) The conclusion that regulation is required. You're hallucinating some causality in the statements that isn't written. It has not been demonstrated that AI (AGI) will be dangerous. Further, LMMs are not AI. LLMs have also not been demonstrated to be dangerous. We do not need to give OpenAI (Microsoft) regulatory capture.

George83728 3y ago
So your objection to LLMs being called AI is a non sequitur and has nothing to do with your objection to LLMs being regulated? That's not the impression I got from either of your comments.