[pton_xd]

Fair but my point is simply, if a gun kills a person it's functioning as intended, but you can't say the same about a chat bot.

[JumpCrisscross]

> if a gun kills a person it's functioning as intended, but you can't say the same for a chat bot

Of course you can. AI has been deployed in multiple military campaigns.

[dugidugout]

> a chat bot

We are clearly not discussing deployments in military campaigns.The suit in question is specifically regarding "ChatGPT" used conversationally.

[JumpCrisscross]

> suit in question is specifically regarding "ChatGPT" used conversationally

The suit in question doesn't involve any guns. We're obviously having a broader discussion.

[dugidugout]

Regarding guns and chat bots. You've said as much and the origin of the discussion says as much. Where does anyone suggest they are referring to use of LLMs in military deployments other than you?

[chrisco255]

A gun doesn't kill a person without being driven to action by a human. There are numerous alternative weapons to use, like using a candlestick in the conservatory or a rope in the lead pipe in the study for example.

[bob1029]

> A gun doesn't kill a person without being driven to action by a human.

See: p320 uncommanded discharge controversy.

[vorticalbox]

Their job is to generate text if that text is good or bad they are functioning as intended.