It’s really not even so different. “AI” in the current LLM-era just tricks people into thinking it’s something fundamentally different because it can string together words in a more coherent sentence than we’re used to.

At its core, though, the whole premise of the comment you’ve replied to is the argument that knowledge is dangerous and I hope I don’t have to explain why that’s a bad argument.

True, there are more valid reasons to hate AI, like that its usage inherently degrades the livability of our only planet or that it only functions due to artistic and intellectual property theft.

However, you're glossing over the reality that AI is already being used in weapons. It was also used by my government's regime to illegally kidnap the president of another country, even.

@Nouvellalia you can trick the information machine to give you pretty much any information you want, as long as you don't care how accurate it is. So if someone lies well enough, they can either get the plans for weapons of mass destruction like @metermatic26 was talking about, or they can get incorrect plans that are incredibly dangerous to even try. If the plans are correct, they can hurt anyone they want. If the plans are incorrect, they can hurt themselves and others they don't want to.

"Why are you comparing a tool used for knowledge and action augmentation"Surely you are joking.Are you using the LLM to write ?Moving the goalposts implies ...you just don't make any sense.This is one of the problems of AI.The appearance of making sense, without anyactual sense making.

How do you inflict a mass casualty with encyclopedias and electric motors?

a tool used for knowledge and action augmentation

It's a bullshit aggregator attached to a stochastic bullshit firehose.

I’m a data and AI specialist, so no…I’m not scared of technology :p

I’ll explain my argument: AI is technology that can be used for software automation. Neither software in general or AI are dangerous technologies in and of themselves. Just as nuclear energy or jet propulsion are not dangerous technologies in and of themselves.

But the application of technology is never ever neutral, so rules and regulations are always necessary to dictate the context and the conditions in which technology is being applied.

And therein lies the issue: Big Tech is allowing their models and platforms to be used to create applications that are inherently harmful. For example, how is it not a problem when people create deepfake porn of their underaged ex-girlfriend?

And mind you this is not an oversight: tech companies know well in advance what their models can be used for and the issues themselves can be fixed easily. They simply chose to accept the damage inflicted unto individuals and security and stability of society as a whole.

All so they can get ahead of the crowd and maximize their market share. If anything, this article is a testament to this clash of interests between society and big tech.