The definition of intelligence hasn't changed since the 1980's, most would say that true intelligence requires intentionality which is not something LLMs are capable of, defining intelligence can turn into a fairly deep philosophical debate (which I have no interest in having).
again, all the things you listed are just humans acting like humans, not aliens. Thinking these things are not things that fall within you own human nature is rather arrogant don't you think.
My point is that wild imaginations about the current state of LLMs is the problem, we wouldn't even consider connecting a random number generator or a statistical model to a weapons system but if we start thinking of it as an intelligence some actually would be tempted to do so.
That is a choice a human made. Imagine if someone proposed sending the outputs of a random number generator to a space laser and had it fire at will, would we blame the number generator for the destruction it causes? You may say that LLMs are not random number generators, and I would somewhat agree, but at least in their current state and level of understanding we have about how they derive their output they might as well be.
uhg this entire way of treating AI like a magical alien invasion is the problem, it just a statistical model, text-in, text-out (and it humans that feed the input and act on the output). Its not some alien invasion that can't be stopped, its just another technology that we as humans need to figure out how we want to use. Seriously people need to stop trying to anthropomorphize AI, because doing so is one of the biggest hurdles to practical/common-sense AI adoption IMO.
Altman really needs some better coaching on how to sound like a real human, he's not pulling it off here. Who witnesses someone firebombing their home (which is terrible btw), thinks for a second about their family then writes a diatribe full of AI marketing bs. He doesn't even attempt to make it sound personal. He could have incorporated his feelings about his child growing up in an AI dominated world or something to that effect, even as trite as that sounds, it would ring more believably human than what was written here.
There isn't much compelling economic data that AI has been the cause of any recent layoffs or job loss, yet you speak as if we are already in the throws of an AI takeover. Sam Altman is a salesman, he sells products that's all he is and ever has been, if you are looking for answers to why people can't afford house and food you should look at the politicians in power.
Its mostly based on science fiction, and requires some possibly infinite energy source. The concept always kinda struck me a sort of a perpetual motion machine, you can imagine it, but that doesn't make it possible and why its not possible isn't immediately obvious in the imagination (well I mean most modern minds know its already not possible but you get the point).
I would like to see the concept of what an LLM is move away from its awkward chatbot phase and more into an era of utilitarian functionality (which is where they really shine anyway).
The problem I see it is that LLMs got anthropomorphized early on (which was probably inevitable) so people actually believed the AI was thinking about their problem and considering it when it really wasn't, if we just thought of them as really good auto-complete engines, or better search engines, it would matter less what the LLMs sentiment was towards the users (as it probably shouldn't have any).
Yeah, I have never had good results with refining ideas with models or really any interactions with models outside of rote task such as coding or analyzing document structures, I don't know why I was ever surprised by this as its obvious that LLMs just aren't capable of original thinking. I think part of the problem is that these things were marketed originally as chatbots when that is honestly their weakest use-case. I think even when I was expressly try to not anthropomorphize LLMs I still sorta did in early days, but the less I do so the more utility I get from them.
I really don't think there is a good faith way to regulate it without either violating free speech and/or removing online privacy/anonymity. I strongly believe it should not be regulated, though I would support better educational programs on the dangers of social media usage and other dark patterns (and somewhat related, I would remove most screens from (public) schools).