Naturally the guardrails cannot cover absolutely every possible specific use case, but they can cover most of the known potentially harmful scenarios under the normal, most common circumstances. If the companies won’t do it themselves, then legislation can push them to do it, for example making them liable, if their LLM does something harmful. Regulating AI is not anti-AI.

Probably the same kind of guardrails that they already have - teaching LLMs to recognise patterns of potentially harmful behaviour. There’s nothing impossible in that. Shutting LLMs down altogether is a straw man and extreme example fallacy, when the discussion is about regulation and guardrails.

Discussing the damage LLMs do does not, of course, in any way negate the damage that social media does. These are two different conversations. In the case of social media there’s probably government regulation needed, as it’s clear by now that the companies won’t regulate themselves.

It’s not about banning or refusing AI tools, it’s about making them as safe as possible and regulating their usage.

Your argument is the equivalent of “guns don’t kill people” or blaming drivers for Tesla’s so-called “full self-driving” errors leading to accidents, because “full self-driving” switches itself off right before the accident, leaving the driver responsible as the one who should have paid more attention, even if there was no time left for him to react.

It’s not generally a worse chatbot than others - that is, until Musk manages to ruin it completely.

Hence the updates. This is something that Musk has been trying to overturn for some time now.