4 ms·
Are you arguing that if LLMs were unethical then they would have been destroyed, but they have not been destroyed, so they must not be unethical? If so, you ne
by ptx 1y ago
Are you arguing that if LLMs were unethical then they would have been destroyed, but they have not been destroyed, so they must not be unethical?
If so, you need to show how something needing to be done necessarily results in it actually being done. Many things that need to be done are not actually done.
- GeoAtreides 1y agoNo, I'm afraid that's not what I argued; my comment was normative, not half of an fallacy of the inverse.
- ptx 1y agoAlright. Well, now that we've had two guesses in this thread, maybe you can reveal what you were really arguing and what the proof was?
- GeoAtreides 1y agoLLMs technology is widespread, widely available, effective Posting LLMs content is cheap, easy, undetectable Bad actors (or just greedy) are heavily incentivised to use and not to disclose LLMs use It then follows that LLMs, by their nature, lead inevitably to 'grotesquely unethical' behaviour. There are no guard rails, nothing, to stop LLMs being used in grotesquely unethical ways. Other things that were grotesquely unethical: unit 731, tuskegee syphilis study, mengele, etc. LLMs are inherently flawed and their consequences monstrous, thus they have to be destroyed. Given, of course, that we agree on all this being 'grotesquely unethical'.