[jraph]

Your comment focuses on usage. The post argues that we can't say "it's just a tool" because there are inherent traits that don't depend on usage.

> if it doesn't cause too much harm.

You touch something there: some of us think that simply using LLMs at all encourages developing / spreading this tech that inherently causes too much harm.

[leecommamichael]

Yeah, I tried to just tuoch that because it is highly personal. I don't think I entirely understand the post's point about "inherent traits that don't depend on usage." All tools have these traits as well, don't they?

[jraph]

Sure, but making them work doesn't usually boil the planet, exhaust all the resources and risk causing an economical crisis while stealing anything that lies around on the internet.

[zahlman]

To the extent that these claims actually pan out, responsibility should be assigned to the companies developing these systems, not to their product.

[jraph]

Users of these products are also responsible. They are the ones deciding to use them. To the extent, of course, that their knowledge is obviously limited. And to the extent that they are also subject to the competition.

The problem here is that nobody is accountable for the externalities in this economic system where you can do damage as long as you have enough money to throw away toward this damage. Anthropic, xAI, OpenAI and Google obviously don't care. Public powers mostly don't (regulate) neither. If their potential users don't, who is going to?

The sad state of affairs is that nobody relevant cares, as usual.