LLMs do not have an unconscious, the negative dimension from which a subject can question what they. LLMs do not have desire because they are thoughts without a thinker. The problem is not LLMS but rather, that subjectivity itself is not popular in discussion. I suggest reading Freud, Lacan, Hegel for a start.
I grew up in Canadian snowbelt (Great Lakes) and never lost power. If there is an ice storm - then we all freak out. I'm not saying it can't happen if a lot of snow falls and then there is wind but we lose power in summer more often from squirrels trying to nest in transformers. The biggest blackout I experienced was in Toronto in a summer heatwave.
The book Sublime Object of Ideology (Zizek) and a second volume due soon attempts an interdisciplinary reframing of the theory of everything - working with Quantum Physicists and Material Hegelian/Lacanian philosophy. I am a philosopher who works with theoretical physicists.
The source of our acts of freedom leans more heavily towards our unconscious. This is because our consciousness is ruled by social order, economic order, ideology etc. We take facts, advice that fit what our unconscious can use. For example, we never fall in love because of facts/pros/cons, but only realize afterwards that it has happened. It's not so much that advice doesn't work, but rather provocation to think is what works and advice is about surplus enjoyment of the advisor.
The point of philosophy is to ask better questions, specifically questions that do not mystify the problem and thus perpetuate it. It's is not and has never been about answers. - love, a philospher
As a critical theorist, Freud was rejected alongside many old white dudes in an understandable reactionary reflex for many decades. One had to turn to Fanon to access thinking about the unconscious. I would argue that currents in philosophy to us Lacan and Freud to read capitalist subjectivity alongside new interpretations of Hegel have shifted the field tremendously, starting with the 1989 work of Zizek Sublime Object of Ideology. Over the decades this work has increased in relevance as a way of understanding a way out of our current predicament.
What if universality is a name for a kind of antagonism? What comes first is not a wholeness that is disturbed, but difference itself. Reality itself is unfinished and built in parallax. This new theory alongside current metaphysical theories of everything is inspiring.
These deadlocks of thought have a resource that is differended (not available to the discussion we are having for ideological reasons) but I will attempt a provocation: Philosophy. Precisely Graham Harmon's Immaterialsm and the analysis of form and the process of Duomining: This preoccupation with objects and forms cuts against the grain of most recent avant-garde theorizing in the arts, humanities, and social sciences. Usually objects are either dissolved downward into material components and sub-individual, blob-like masses (“undermining”), or they are dissolved upward into holistic networks of relations, events, and practices (“overmining”), or both of these at once (“duomining”). Form, for its part, has been so marginalized by the repeated waves of materialist theories that it is usually mentioned only in the context of mathematical formalization (for recent examples see Badiou 2006; Meillassoux 2008), precisely the opposite of what object-oriented philosophy means by form: a surplus beyond any access, mathematical or otherwise.(https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9781315641171... )