> If you think you're superior because you're in software or IT or you've done ML in different contexts? I'm here to tell you, that unless you're not a layman and actually build LLMs, you're not because all your info is from the same place as all the other people outside of tech.

You don't need expertise building LLMs to interpret the hype and see who has financial interests in promoting non-existent technology, calling it AI and allowing people to get excited and/or scared because the same terminology gets used in 2001 and Terminator. How LLMs actually work has very little to do with how people perceive them, or how they might affect daily life, to say nothing of how they might affect share prices.

> it's the actually the experts who started the extinction AI petition

Some experts, and lots of people who have not themselves built LLMs, such as Elon Musk, Yuval Noah Harari, Steve Wozniak. Look at the foundation behind the letter and show me all the AI experts who know how to build LLMs [1]. Alan Alda? Morgan Freeman? Sure, some people with respected names in the field did sign, as did some VCs and executives most likely trying to buy time for their own products.

Some experts who didn't sign the letter: Stephen Wolfram [2], Juergen "father of AI" Schmidhuber [3], Rodney Brooks [4], Donald Knuth [5]. I think I can safely state that no consensus exists among the "experts" who do know how LLMs work, and how other things that got called "AI" in the past work. You can find just as much skepticism as FUD. Rather conveniently the AI hype-train makes forgetting about Web3, the metaverse, and crypto easier, even if you see the same names come up.

> Anyway an hour with chatGPT and reading some articles on LLMs is enough for anyone to know the boundaries of LLMs.

No, that isn't enough time, not even for someone who knows a little about what they're looking at.

You seem to make two inconsistent rebuttals: Most people can quickly figure out the limitations of LLMs like ChatGPT, and critics who haven't made LLMs don't know what they're talking about and should shut up. As for the first claim, I'll point out that people have used microwave ovens for five decades and way too many everyday users associate microwave ovens with radioactivity. People drive cars every day and can't explain the first thing about the technology. I think you grossly overestimate how deeply people understand technology they use every day. Just ask a cell phone user how cellular communications works.

Dr. Johnson punctured the second argument a long time ago:
"You may scold a carpenter who has made you a bad table, though you cannot make a table. It is not your trade to make tables."

> Mind you, there will be stories of people that are fooled but those people are obviously a huge minority of chatGPT users.

ChatGPT is already plugged into the Bing search engine, and into Windows, MS Office, and other products. New integrations and plugins get announced every day. The technology is rolling out behind other products and applications, and very soon (if not already) regular users will interact with ChatGPT or something like it without knowing that. They may spend hours with a chatbot and not interpret bad information as a hallucination or error. As so many experts have already talked about, the danger from what we're calling AI this decade isn't SkyNet or getting turned into paperclips, but people fooling themselves, or getting deliberately tricked and scammed, by a technology that they don't understand and have attached sci-fi capabilities to. People with financial interests like Sam Altman out there promoting fantasies of AI threatening humanity perpetuate the ignorance by pretending we're on the edge of the sci-fi dystopia, when actually LLMs are nowhere near AGI, and Altman knows that. "Look over there, watch out for the killer robots while I pick your pocket." Ker-ching.

[1] https://futureoflife.org/open-letter/pause-giant-ai-experime...

[2] https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2023/02/what-is-chatgpt-...

[3] https://www.forbes.com/sites/hessiejones/2023/05/23/juergen-...

[4] https://spectrum.ieee.org/gpt-4-calm-down

[5] https://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~knuth/chatGPT20.txt