For anything where you would ever expect a predictable, useful outcome to an arbitrary input. There is no possible path to LLMs ever doing anything close to that.

LLMs aren’t driving cars. LLMs aren’t doing financial modeling. Those are entirely different tools with heavily hand crafted models to specific applications.

Anyone using an LLM to provide therapy should get multiple life sentences in prison regardless of outcomes. There is no possible way to LLMs ever being actually useful for therapy. It’s just a random text generator that’s tuned well enough to sound good. It has no substance and the underlying tech cannot possibly develop substance.

It’s only an “open question” if you are somehow confused by the fact that it’s a super simple algorithm that cannot ever possibly be used like that.

It may be a small part of a proper architecture for a functional solution, but there’s no possibility that it will ever be doing the heavy lifting. It is what it is, and that’s an obvious dead end.

There are plenty of nondeterministic algorithms. It’s not a special trait. There are plenty of algorithms with actual emergent behavior, which LLMs don’t have to any meaningful extent. We absolutely understand how LLMs work

The answer to both of your questions is not some unsolved mystery. It’s “of course not”. That’s not what they do and fundamentally requires a much more complex architecture to even approach.

It’s regulatory capture. Add deluded barriers to entry to make it difficult for competition and community projects to develop, and you have a monopoly.

We do fully understand them. Not knowing the exact reason they come to a model doesn’t mean the algorithm has a shred of mystery involved. It’s like saying we don’t understand fluid dynamics because it’s computationally heavy.

It’s autocomplete with a really big training set and a really big model. It cannot possibly develop agency. It’s hundreds of orders of magnitude of complexity short of a human.

Zero of these things are impacted by this legislation in any way.

This is exclusively the mentally unstable “killer AI” nonsense. We’re not even 1% of 1% of the way to anything resembling agency.

Though it sounds extreme, there are a lot of smart people in the AI community who truly believe AI could end humanity.

No. There are not.

Believing anything resembling current tools has the capacity to end humanity in incontrovertible proof that you are not smart.

Because the point of those support programs is to prevent literal physical harm, which is massively correlated to physically stronger men screaming at physically smaller women and children. (In straight couples) If your husband is yelling at you frequently, the probability is reasonably high that there will be physical harm. It’s effectively a certainty that there’s a real threat of physical harm associated with the yelling.

(In straight couples), if your wife is yelling at you, the probability is close to zero that there will be physical harm. It is also unlikely that the yelling even constitutes any threat of physical harm.

Almost no man searching that term needs or benefits from resources on being abused by their wife. Almost every woman reading searching that term does need resources on being abused by their husband.