You need only to look at the discourse around the Tesla FSD superusers to see this: they report a glitch at an intersection one day, then believe the next day it was "fixed" by the AI.
It's not particularly "scary" to me that people do that. I remember Boomer and Scooby Doo bots that people anthropomorphized and those were warbots from barely 10 y ago.
I suppose, in today's parlance, "it's scary how much people use fear-oriented language for normal things".
It seems to be the current trend in communication nowadays: A race to induce the strongest reaction possible.
Why should someone be scared of that? We have anthropomorphised chairs, brooms and whatnot since the Walt Disney times and I am sure before in classic literature (I am not that literate to know for certain).
I prefer to be 'amazed' or 'excited' about what is happening: It means that AI is getting to a point where people feel it more 'relatable'. We are getting to that point in our technology development. The number of things we will be able to do with a technology with which we can interact that seamlesly is great.
I doubt it’s trigger warnings because they usually don’t “warn scary things”.
Also is there any data to back up that scary and fear is used more today than in the past? That seems unlikely.
Some people even anthropomorphized Eliza. To your point: if you cherry pick enough and survey enough people; “some people” will do just about anything.
I agree that some people take it too far, but most seem to be using metaphor to abstract away the underlying complexities and facilitate conversation. I did the same thing back in college, anthropomorphizing cells and even molecules when I was learning about microbiology and biophysics (e.g., kinesins[1] are a family of postal workers who work hard to deliver packages to their clients in a timely manner, and they spend their free time going for strolls and practicing on their favorite tightropes). I now do it in my day-to-day work at an AI/ML shop to communicate not just what the entire pipeline is doing, but what individuals layers or encoders are doing, or even what variables in an equation are doing. I find that my colleagues and I are better able to understand and remember concepts and ideas when they're communicated as part of an anthropomorphic story, but we scarcely forget that the things we're dealing with aren't human.
But maybe I'm missing the point, and you're really worried about that first, smaller group of people who have really swallowed the Kool aid. To that, I can say that I don't think their behavior exceeds the baseline craziness/weirdness that I've come to expect from humanity. I'm sure there are far more people who believe in astrology than who believe that we've achieved true humanlike artificial general intelligence, for example.
What I find scary is how much trust people put into the answers.
Today, I saw someone saying "Look! ChatGPT can design my home solar electrical circuit". That kind of thing will lead to new Darwin awards being given out.
Thing is, if people will trust it to do that right, when will politicians write policy papers with it? Let's face it, they already are. Other people won't want to read those long papers, so they'll ask it to summarise it for them. At that point you have LLMs writing laws and reviewing laws. It's all fine as long as nobody enforces them.
Right?
No, that's the problem. You can't. You should be able to, but you can't. If you could, they wouldn't be scary. But we have Temperature Zero, different results. Because no one gave enough of a shit when coding them, and no one gives enough of a shit to try to fix the issue.
This is what in any other industry would be called gross negligence.
No, you can't. For the latest GPT models and the way they are run, this doesn't work anymore, making the experiment completely illogical. Some of the reasons are explained here pretty well: https://152334h.github.io/blog/non-determinism-in-gpt-4/