Raw LLM Responses

I studied LLM's, and I would love to go back to when they first started making noise in the news as "AI". No one was calling it AI until the news started doing that, and that was for a very specific reason. Because if you tell people that: There's this new tool, it's called an LLM. It can read any physical document, and translate it into a digital format. It can identify potential threats in security footage. It can assist with translation services for people with no money to hire a professional. It can generate rough drafts of documents, that you can refine. It can take one of the most dangerous things you'll do on a daily basis (driving), and do that FOR YOU, safely. But if you take the exact same sentiment, but replace LLM (or NN or any other variation) and call it AI, you have immediately set up an expectation. People KNOW what AI is. They know what it is from books and movies. And AI in those stories is always going to mess up or turn evil. And of course they do in stories, because the story of "It was mostly fine, and the majority of people didn't even think about it enough to care" isn't as compelling as "And then it went evil and we had to have a desperate fight to win". I do talk to people about this, because it comes up relatively often. The vast, vast majority of people have no concept of how this works. They replace knowledge with ignorance, and that lack of knowledge makes it scary. All they know is "AI bad", even when they turn around and willingly utilise it in their day-to-day life because it makes some tasks so much easier. I would love to see the timeline where the fucking news didn't start doing that. Where instead of having to fight back against immediate cognitive biases, in addition to the natural fear of the unknown, we could have had a very useful, if limited, tool at our disposal. This could have been useful, and FUN, and ultimately improved the safety of our lives. But the fucking news sells fear and not happiness, because happiness fascinates people less.