Raw LLM Responses

@parodybbb Hmmm, that is interesting. However, just because the creators are baffled by the results does not necessarily mean it‘s gone freerange and is no longer bound by set definitions. In many fields, individuals are no longer able to fully grasp the whole a.k.a. functionality beyond the sum of parts. Take NASA‘s shuttles: Many engineers from different fields work on projects, no one can grasp the whole. It was simply a matter of time this would become the case with programming languages, especially since the creation of higher programming language. When I program a piece of code, I am no longer able to explain just how my code resulted in what you see on your screen. These „AI“ projects are written by many people, a large team. For example, we have found applications for quantum physics. Even when you‘re reading off the time of day, you‘re making use of it. We do not fully understand quantum physics. Many theoretical mathematicians would be astounded by what we use their theorems for now-a-days. They could not have known. I am glad though that we are talking about it now. Better too soon than on the dot. We‘ll have a whole new set of questions to ask ourselves concerning responsibility on security issues (ie. of mankind, this is what seems more important today due to political circumstances) but also responsibility towards the AI itself. That second part is, as of now, not a relevant issue. But it will become. I‘m certain we‘ll break the threshold … when is then the question. For me, it‘s mainly about semantics of the use of the term „AI“ which, I believe, is being used preemptively.