Comment by blooalien

I love (hate) that so very many of these language models say things like that when the truth is that the humans who made it, and/or the humans who use it are the actual responsible parties every single time. The models and the "agentic harnesses" that drive them are just software. If software "runs amok", then someone (human) did something wrong/bad somewhere along the way, either accidentally or purposefully. The model trying to take responsibility for human error is hilarious (and a bit sad/scary, because too many people will take it at it's word, despite it being a mindless machine with no actual agency beyond that which the humans provide it in the form of prompting and harness code).

It frustrates me no end that so many folks are so ready and willing to accept the hype and lies about what this technology actually is or can do, when what it actually is and can really do is already amazing enough on it's own even without all the ridiculous AGI/ASI anthropomorphising bullshit. Falling into this ridiculous "machine-god" hype-cult is kinda holding this technology back from it's true full potential, as everyone's all busy doin' stupid stuff it's not really capable of doing well, or designed for instead of focusing on using it for the (many) things it is really really good at doing (various really useful and powerful language, vision, and audio related tasks).