No, that is not my argument, which you would’ve seen if you’d read to the end.

Maybe Google is insane. The last time I tested it, I got a different answer the second time.

So, they’re defending Musk because he’s one of them?

Technically not a monopoly, because that would mean only one company has control, and that’s illegal. It would be a small number of companies, though.

Got it. So plants are intelligent.

Or if the military put an LLM in charge of nuclear weapons. But surely nobody would be stupid enough to do that!

Yes, but when the shit hits the fan and they blame the AI, we shouldn’t let them get away with it. It’s their fault, not the computer’s.

LLMs basically work like auto-correct. They’re much more sophisticated, but it’s the same basic principle. Instead of “Which letter is most likely to follow after this series of letters?” it’s “Which token is most likely to follow after this series of tokens?” A token can be anything, but usually it’s a word.

Now, given that, consider a statement like

We really do earnestly believe AI could kill all humans!

Okay, how? A statistical model generating tokens doesn’t have thought, it doesn’t have emotions, so it can’t want to do something, much less make plans and carry them out.

Could AI give somebody the ability to kill all humans? How? Under what scenario? Is somebody putting an LLM in charge of their nuclear stockpile? You don’t blame the LLM. You blame the humans who made that decision.

Yeah, because it’s all statistical. You can test this yourself. Go to Google and search for something. Then search for that same exact thing again. Gemini will give you a different response each time.

I’ve heard a few explanations for the “AI will kill us all” narrative.

1. AI techies are in a cult. They genuinely believe this stuff because they’re crazy.

2. It makes the AI sound powerful and impressive, which is ultimately good for the AI companies.

3. They’re starting to face competition from open-weight models, so they want to scare politicians into crafting regulations. They think that they will be able to influence the regulations to favor them and squeeze out their competition.

And, of course, there’s

4. It keeps people talking about AI. Because whatever you do, don’t quit talking about AI, because if you quit talking about it, the line might go down! And the line going down is very, very bad.

I think it’s pretty wild that not only is there a man who saved the world, but most people don’t even know his name.

“This reminds me of a movie I once saw, so I’m going to believe it didn’t happen.” LOOOLLL

What a world you must live in.

“rape machine”

Just don’t go down in the park.

This is fine.

The main thing is that they want you to keep talking about it. Even if it’s negative press, it’s still press. Just whatever you do…don’t quit talking about it! That’s why I have trouble even making a comment like this. I feel like I’m still feeding into it somehow.

I have two questions for you.

Do you believe that everybody is a blank slate without variation?

Mozart learned to play at 4, began composing at 5, and wrote his first symphony at 8. Do you think that every child is capable of this?

I’m not talking about the legal construct, though. I’m talking about the philosophical principle.

Free speech doesn’t let you say whatever you want to anyone, it’s intention is to protect you while speaking out against government officials and offices.

It sounds like you’re getting freedom of speech mixed up with the First Amendment. They aren’t the same thing. The First Amendment’s intention is to protect your freedom of speech from the government. If you want your freedom of speech protected from other things (such as your employer), the First Amendment won’t protect you.

No, the First Amendment only protects you from the government. “Free speech” is a philosophical principle which has nothing to do with governments directly.

However, an “advertising standards board” that decides what can and cannot be posted publicly sounds pretty governmental to me.

But even when free speech wasn’t forced it wouldn’t force channels to carry your advertisement.

Of course, but that still isn’t any kind of universal standards board, that’s individual channels deciding independently.

That sounds like it would go against the First Amendment.