Naturally the guardrails cannot cover absolutely every possible specific use case, but they can cover most of the known potentially harmful scenarios under the normal, most common circumstances. If the companies won’t do it themselves, then legislation can push them to do it, for example making them liable, if their LLM does something harmful. Regulating AI is not anti-AI.
Probably the same kind of guardrails that they already have - teaching LLMs to recognise patterns of potentially harmful behaviour. There’s nothing impossible in that. Shutting LLMs down altogether is a straw man and extreme example fallacy, when the discussion is about regulation and guardrails.
Discussing the damage LLMs do does not, of course, in any way negate the damage that social media does. These are two different conversations. In the case of social media there’s probably government regulation needed, as it’s clear by now that the companies won’t regulate themselves.
It’s not about banning or refusing AI tools, it’s about making them as safe as possible and regulating their usage.
Your argument is the equivalent of “guns don’t kill people” or blaming drivers for Tesla’s so-called “full self-driving” errors leading to accidents, because “full self-driving” switches itself off right before the accident, leaving the driver responsible as the one who should have paid more attention, even if there was no time left for him to react.
A kind of computerised profascist authoritarian dystopia, a combination “1984” and “Brave New World” with technocratic oligarchy, total surveillance, killer robots and unsafe self-driving cars in the world increasingly subject to natural catastrophes due to steadily worsening climate change.
Name a thing that is unbiased. It’s generally significantly less biased than humans are.
I do indeed, and I think that it’s a remarkably disingenuous and biased take.