I don't think I care. I don't rely on LLMs in any meaningful way and don't intend to in my lifetime. Furthermore, we live in an era where censorship is so commonplace that the majority of first-world citizens are guaranteed to not care. Big tech preconditioned us to want this, it should be glaringly obvious if you own recent iOS/Android hardware.
How would we feel if Google refused to present search results as a result of legally-mandated censorship? They already do it. There are things you will look up that return nothing, even if it has an indexed result that would help you. And nobody cares. We shake our fists at Google, HN says the meanest things about Alphabet, and we all watch several hours of YouTube a week while our family depends on Google search results like their mortal soul.
> That's how you change the outcomes of elections, sentiments towards personalities and events within small segments of time, space & demographics [...] Wihout the need of a cooperative medium in those other countries.
Which is all grand and nice, but we've been dealing with misinformation and counterintelligence since World War II. For the past 100 years it has been common knowledge that you should encrypt any message with valuable contents; functional governments and bureaucracies aren't going to be fooled by AI. Not only have they prepared for this exact breed of information warfare, but they are usually designed to thwart social engineering attacks that individuals are vulnerable to. For example, AI isn't going to launch an ICBM since the chain-of-command requires physical operators, executive validation and code distribution, and a radio operator that remotely okays the launch. Similar restrictions exist for most any lethal authorization from a governmental body, for obvious reasons.
A robot that generates FOIA requests is 100x more dangerous to the US government than any standalone AI will ever be.
> Can someone light the fuze? Will someone?
Well in my last comment I sorta held Israel's feet to the fire, so if the Lavander reports turn out to be true then I guess we'll blame radical Judaism rather than Islam or Christian nationalists. Even then though; as detestable as Lavander is, the main "problem" is that human operators aren't doing their job. The United States also uses computers to generate tactical ground targets; but they don't use it to maximize damage or reduce oversight in the kill-chain. Again, examples like the Patriot system are good enough evidence that smart countries can design autonomous weapons that have zero "skynet" factor built into them.
My point isn't warmongering, though you seem to want to interpret it like that. I'm drawing distinction between the way autonymy is treated on the battlefield, in reality. If the "damages" we see from AI mostly arise from careless generation of JDAM targets, there is practically zero risk for civilian misuse in the same fashion.
> but you still can't send their output blindly into the world. Which is why we're still waiting for the damages to appear.
If you're implying that LLMs will never present feasible damages until they approach 100% accuracy, then I posit that we have nothing to worry about. LLMs will not be correct, ever. It's part of their architecture; you chop up words into meaningless tokens, and then correlate them with weights before inference with RNG. Tokens themselves are not meaningful and a hack to get LLMs to generate strings of text. Weights are imperfect, and do not inherently present an opportunity to become perfect or even competitive with rational human thought. RNG can be removed, but it doesn't make the LLM any smarter. It just hardcodes bad or random or unusable answers; we want the random element for... well, "creativity". Which is at-odds with our desire for rational certainty.