Raw LLM Responses

I'm quite sure I sat thru this interview 4 months ago. I'm less sure if I made a comment then. Perhaps if I had a catalog of every syntactic communication I've made over the entirety of my life, never mind comments I've placed on youtube, I might be better able to interpolate and predict what I might say today, predicated on what I've already said, but alas that is not the case. There are multiple observations I'd like to make like "We might not want to write hallucination out of the architecture because it might be a foundational aspect of innovation or imagination." Or maybe, "Perhaps we really need to consider the specific aspects of Hilter's behavior which made the Riech successful in the short term and threatening in the long term rather than simply saying we don't want a mechahitler because 'bad'." EDIT: Really felt as though a qualifier was need here: "In the context of qualifying the alien nature of a nonmonkey brain. Responsible and cautious development of AI just doesn't seem plausible without careful consideration and conversation about sentience and consciousness because we're not just creating another more advanced Turing machine. The closest you seemed to come to that conclusion was the suggestion that it's development was more like agriculture than architechture. I guess I'd also like to suggest that the comparison between selective breeding and building a house represents a false equivalence. Only because the organization of the raw materials in a living thing have a predetermined nature that we might manipulate but not create. K, done for now though I may be back, we'll see if this generates any response.