>> Why is it that people think of it as a tool but then when it comes to LLMs they suddenly say "it can be dangerous". I mean, more dangerous than Linux? It co

>> Why is it that people think of it as a tool but then when it comes to LLMs they suddenly say "it can be dangerous". I mean, more dangerous than Linux? It comes down to both determinism and how well people understand the technology. LLMs do not work in a way that we can reason about in a deterministic way. We just put the components together, feed it a lot of data, and then apply an input in the hopes that a suitable output comes out. Individual components of the model are understood, but the whole is much more vague. When we ask how LLMs work at a macro level, the true answer is that we are not really sure. If one part of the model is changed, what will the result be? If some of the training data is changed, what will the result be? Why do LLMs "hallucinate"? Linux is just an operating system kernel. What it does and how it does it are well understood. We can reason about how it works and when we change out individual components, we understand what the results will be. It is easy to reason about how the pieces work and what they do as a whole. People are fundamentally afraid of things that they do not understand. LLMs can be even more scary to non-technical people because of the way that artificial intelligence and robots have been portrayed in science fiction for decades. "safe linux" as given in the tweet seems like a ridiculous idea. It quickly brings to mind HAL 9000 in "2001: A Space Odyssey" saying "I'm sorry, Dave. I can't do that." Maybe I'm just old, but I don't want AI or LLMs between me and my computing task unless I choose it to be there. Get off my virtual lawn and let me see the files.