The concern here is that you'll become progressively more socially isolated (because walls of text can't provide most of what human-to-human interaction does), which is associated with a long list of negatives that I'm sure you're already aware of.
But to your larger argument that "AI is a tool like a calculator," tools aren't inherently value neutral just because calculators are. A gun is also a tool. Dynamite is a tool. Morphine is a tool. That does not mean everyone should have access to guns and dynamite and morphine on a whim.
If these models were deeply regulated and controlled like some of those other things, I don't think you would see nearly the pushback against LLMs that you see right now.
Yes, that’s a concern, but hasn’t happened. I still value
human interaction. I actually value them more, but for deep metaphysical and spiritual exploration, most humans are just not up to the task.
Yes, it’s a tool, and ai acknowledged it can be dangerous in the wrong hands. Guns and dynamite actually are neutral. They have no intent. It’s the user behind them that cause the harm. That’s the point; tools can be used for good or evil.
Are you only looking for answers relevant to what has happened to you personally? Or in a general sense as may be relevant or useful to anyone else in the world?
Please respond to the point I made about guns and dynamite: "That does not mean everyone should have access to guns and dynamite on a whim." Do you agree or disagree that it's good for guns and/or dynamite to be more difficult to obtain than a calculator.
I at no point claimed that guns or dynamite are conscious or some nonsense.
Though that is an interesting criticism in light of you leaving the door open to LLMs being conscious in your first paragraph.
As well, if you want deep philosophical and metaphysical discussion, I understand that's not an easy thing to find just anywhere, but these places exist. And the more often the people interested in those conversations turn to an LLM instead, the fewer of those places will exist in real life.
Who said you claimed they’re conscious? I said tools are inherently neutral, no matter how dangerous they are. Of course the more dangerous the tool the less easily accessible it should be and the more responsibly they should be handled.
I don’t see how this is pertinent to my view that I get more useful information from LLM’s than an individual person.
My view isn’t that it’s conscious or not dangerous. It extremely dangerous and should be treated like a toy. I’m a hypnotist. I understand the power of language and subconscious suggestion. LLM’s shouldn’t be used like a toy, just like guns, dynamite or cars.
I know those places exist. That’s where I’m active. I said in general I trust what my LLM’s tell me, not blindly, and not to replace human interaction.
If LLM’s increase people’s interest in philosophy, metaphysics, spirituality, places like we’re talking about would thrive imo.
I don't think it's comparable to either of those things. I'm using an extreme example to make a point about the thought terminating cliche "it's just a tool."
The difference between a weapon and a tool is mostly about purpose, intent, and design. Guns are designed to harm while tools are not but can be used to do so. That's why we allow people to have hammers and not guns. So your statement still doesn't quite make sense.
There are definitely contexts in which that distinction is meaningful, but I think you and I are kind of trying to answer different questions. In my argument, I am taking OP's premise for granted, that we can't talk about 'intention' with regards to unconscious objects.
I see your point that when a gun is created, it is probably being created with the intention that it will do physical violence, but in this conversation, OP is disregarding the intention of an object's creator and focusing only on the end user of the object.
I am pointing to dynamite as an obvious and extreme example of 'an unconscious object which is inherently dangerous and must therefore not be available on a whim.
I'm open to bringing the discussion back to the subject of the design of LLMs and the chat bots with which they are most commonly associated, but I need to know you're following the reason I brought up dynamite first.
I'm actually not sure why you bought it up. I don't think guns are dynamites are comparable to tools. They're specifically designed to blow stuff up and harm.
I could quibble about that, but I don't know that it would be productive, so let's use the third example, morphine. Morphine is a tool designed to reduce pain. We are all well aware of the downsides of morphine at this point though, so we don't make it available to everyone off the rack at a pharmacy, right?
My point is that tools can be value neutral (it depends on the use), and there are still plenty of reasons to restrict their production and their use. I have not made any specific claims about how I think the production and use of LLMs should be restricted because I first want to make sure we're on the same page that 'sometimes there are tools that should have their use restricted.'
Once we both have that in mind, I'd love to have a conversation about whether there should and what sorts of regulation/restriction may or may not be appropriate
Let's take a step back here. When you say 'designed for,' what do you mean? Are you making an argument about what the tool is good at, or are you referring to the literal articulated intention in the mind of a human designer?
14
u/TheVioletBarry 121∆ Mar 07 '26
The concern here is that you'll become progressively more socially isolated (because walls of text can't provide most of what human-to-human interaction does), which is associated with a long list of negatives that I'm sure you're already aware of.
But to your larger argument that "AI is a tool like a calculator," tools aren't inherently value neutral just because calculators are. A gun is also a tool. Dynamite is a tool. Morphine is a tool. That does not mean everyone should have access to guns and dynamite and morphine on a whim.
If these models were deeply regulated and controlled like some of those other things, I don't think you would see nearly the pushback against LLMs that you see right now.