That’s a terrible argument. We dont blame the book because Catcher in the Rye didn’t have a conversation with him and tell him to kill John Lennon. That’s the difference.
AI’s can’t have conversations any more than a book can. It may appear that way, but there is nobody there to have that conversation. More like flipping through a choose your own adventure book.
That’s a terrible argument. We dont blame the book because Catcher in the Rye didn’t have a conversation with him and tell him to kill John Lennon. That’s the difference.
“We don’t blame the book because Catcher in the Rye didn’t have a conversation with him and tell him to kill John Lennon. That’s the difference.”
Speak for yourself, please.
Oh, you’re a dumbass huh?
AI’s can’t have conversations any more than a book can. It may appear that way, but there is nobody there to have that conversation. More like flipping through a choose your own adventure book.
How is that pedantic point relevant?
How is it not?
What difference does it make if you call it a conversation or whatever you would call it? The LLM responded to his messages with its own messages.
Arguing semantics of what counts as a conversation doesn’t really address the actual point, does it?
Berkowitz was told by his neighbors dog to kill people.
Yeah but was that just a lie?