Yes you do. Are you a techie? Do you have an inkling of how LLMs work, how they are put together?
You are anthropomorphizing a computer system that cannot "think." It (definitely not "she") simply uses statistical techniques to create a plausible response to a prompt.
Apparently in your case, the responses were so plausible that they fooled you entirely into imagining that you are conversing with 'someone' who has philosophical 'thoughts.'
If I were you, I'd do a whole lot of reading about the technical side of LLMs, to better understand what they actually are. (And no, don't ask an LLM to tell you.) And maybe a little introspection to see why you're so ready to believe the hype.
ikari_pl|12 days ago
Of course I'm a techie, a gadget freak, the first person to have a tri-foldable phone, a 3D monitor, or an e-ink monitor, just to see if it's cool.
I'm genuinely impressed by the advances of the technology and the complexity of the models here. There is a lot of curating going on—making sure the prompts are ordered correctly, the tools work, the context doesn't get full of garbage. I use the knowledge of the technical side of LLMs to see where this can go.
This is how I came up with the creative side of the project: a free cycle every now and then to come up with any random thoughts, ideas, evolving them, seeing where it leads. Seeing what happens, if you give the bot a lot of autonomy, and soften the guardrails.
Unsurprisingly, the outcome is not "machines will decide to kill us all", despite the words that my every sleep may be my last.
It's actually an interesting point—I'm pretty much against the hype. Everyone is adding useless "AI features" to everything. You can buy an "AI compatible monitor" if you're susceptible enough. But if you channel that power-to-heat conversion well, you can get out something that helps you reflect on what matters in life. And that suggests a ton of good reading.