Raw LLM Responses

I enjoyed reading. There's perhaps a conflation in the core argument, I think you do not clearly distinguish between human compulsion to find hidden core, essence or meaning in everything - and the need to find exciting narratives that provoke our imagination. When people claim, and not because they work in marketing for ai company, that AI "genuinely understands" - surely, it's not their human compulsion to find meaning that makes them choose *that particular explanation* - it's something else, likely to do with their personality or identity or psycological makeup. > there is no “nation” or “authority” somewhere at the heart of a land or a building but if it's in the heart of humans - is it merely attachment? there's no "money" either, and no "law and order" if we do not attach meaning, no "basic human rights". after all, even if we examine things only by what they do and how they can be constrained - how can we say "whether that can be directed toward good ends" without attaching some core or meaning at least to what good means? p.s. I thought of a Zen-like saying to illustrate this paradox: without attachment, who brings the Zen master his bowl of rice? > We have faced versions of this before. When powerful corporations emerged and threatened the interests of people, what resolved the practical question was law and regulation, aligning behavior with broader interests, because that is what was actually there. historically, this is debatable - there was the threat of communism during much of the 20th century that could be equally argued to have led to the status quo we know today. ie it may have been *group* power struggle that led to capitalism being more constrained and less vicious than it may have otherwise been - and I don't think AI has similar counter force operating against it. That's not to say AI is sentient or that we are facing the ai apocalypse, just that the historical examples may not be as reassuring as you suggest or as we may want th