You may think the UK government is nuts (I do, I left due to an unrelated law), but it is what it is.
> Or Google search somehow doesn’t return the chemical processes to make Sarin?
You're still missing the point of everything I've said if you think that's even a good rhetorical question.
I have no idea if that's me giving bad descriptions, or you being primed with the exact false world model I'm trying to convince you to change from.
Hill climbing sometimes involves going down one local peak before you can climb the global.
Again, and I don't know how to make this clearer, I am not calling for an undifferentiated ban on all AI just because they can be used for bad ends, I'm saying that we need to figure out how to even tell which uses are even the bad ones.
Your original text was:
> We know exactly what the system is capable of doing. It’s capable of outputting tokens which can then be converted into text
Well, we know exactly what a knife is capable of doing.
Does that knowledge mean we allow stabbing? Of course not!
What's the AI equivalent of a stabbing? Nobody knows.
Same as you’re not allowed to commit eg election or postal fraud using LLMs. Are you allowed to carry a hammer? You can use that to kill people. You can also mow them down with a car, push them in front of a train with your bare hands, poison them with otherwise benign household chemicals and so on. It’s the applications that should be regulated, not the underlying tech
