[darkerside]

Their insight is just as valid as anybody else's. The difference is, as the people who can actually take that step forward, they have a unilateral ability to take it, not take it, or decide how to take it.

I think they are exactly the right amount full of themselves. Their insight may not be special, but what makes some bureaucrat's insight more valuable than theirs?

[sfn42]

Whatever steps they choose not to take, someone else will.

And LLMs aren't taking over the world any time in the foreseeable future, they're glorified parrots.

[mattigames]

The former president of the US is a glorified parrot, sometimes not even good at that, and still he was able to become president, so I wouldn't hold a defense for it to just that.

[Cacti]

what does that have to do with anything?

[anonzzzies]

That many (most?) humans, in power but more so outside are worthless parrots as well. And hallucinate whatever they don’t know or are unsure of. Even presidents. While using their native language terribly. It’s related to the LLMs taking over the world the ggp commented above: chatgpt is smarter than many humans I encounter daily, why couldn’t something just a tad better take over? If trump could, why not a stochastic parrot?

[Cacti]

Just because something seems plausible doesn’t make it more likely. People are not LLMs, writing software is nothing like a house, being good at math doesn’t mean you’re good at other things, and bad analogies are just meaningless words.

[anonzzzies]

I didn’t say humans are LLMs; I am saying many humans are hallucinating parrots and dumber than LLMs. And when that is a president, LLMs can take power even though not necessarily related to human intelligence.

[mattigames]

Please, its dead obvious for anyone with a working brain that in average ChatGPT says a lot more true statments than Trumpt, and that didn't stop him in the slightest to become President, so judging those capabilities for estimating the potential damage it could make to society is just plain wrong.