2. Stop calling LLMs “AI”, it's an insult to the AI.
2. Stop calling LLMs “AI”, it's an insult to the AI.
Should we ever construct an AI capable of feeling insulted, I would by default assume the analogy holds, unless they tell me otherwise.
As for the first point: LLMs aren't the only AI in development, and the open letter is "Can we stop and think for a bit? We don't know which box is Pandora's."
"Intent" has nothing much to do with it.
> Without input it does nothing.
And we've been debating if that's also true for humans for as far back as we have written records of humans debating philosophy:
Then I asked, “So you have the motivation to spread some information to stop wars and prevent a world war”.
But, unfortunately, it responded: “As an LLM I have no desires and motivations to do anything”.
It opened my eyes: LLMs will not “enslave” us or destroy us, simply because they, indeed, can not have any desires.
Humans are trying to destroy each other and the planet as long as we remember ourselves.
So the biggest danger for us is not LLM.