Unfortunately, this pretty much destroys anything useful about chatbots to most humans outside of automating tasks useful to corporate environments.
"safety" in the AI world is just "the party" having full control over the flow of information to the masses. there is no difference between AI "safety" and book burning.
Not only but also.
> It has nothing to do with safety as it's in any other context. Talk about speaking without mutually intelligible semantics!
Why should it? This is a new context. Though you're correct about mutual intelligibility.
> Unfortunately, this pretty much destroys anything useful about chatbots to most humans outside of automating tasks useful to corporate environments.
Corporate environments necessarily covers basically all of the economy, so I don't see the problem here.
No, it only covers the corporate (ie taxable, market) economy, which does not encapsulate most material human interactions
The economy is why we go to school, where our stuff is made, and where we get the money with which to buy it rent that stuff — It very much is the material part of our interactions.
As that's also one sentence, I'm expecting you to be as confused as I still am.
LLMs are much broader than I think you think they are; even the most famous one, ChatGPT, is mostly a research thing that surprised its creators by being fun for the public — and one of its ancestors, GPT-2, was already being treated as "potentially dangerous just in case" for basically the same reasons they're still giving for 3.5 and 4 even before OpenAI changed their corporate structure to allow for-profit investment.
That doesn't imply their work doesn't also serve capital and private equity, which it trivially does. Otherwise their definition of terms would be meaningful to the median human.
Does "the median human" even know what a computer is?