I tend to like not fearing starvation every year, not fearing freezing to death every year and not having the vast majority of my kids die. Industrialization led to all that.

The solution is to ensure all common terms people expect in a daily shopping are covered. Thus why "beef patty" was covered. Sounds like you agree with the government on this one. Not covering it would make it confusing for people who would then need to keep track of which common terms are covered and which are not. Its a bit silly at times but as you noted yourself the alternative is even worse.

While saying they're making the world a better place in the process. At least Wall Street sharks tend to be honest about their motivations and lack of giving a shit about you.

Silicon Valley: We're making the world a better place by making the most money no matter the consequences.

In general you can already get this by asking and taking feedback from others. I've seen a lot more people shoot or ignore the messenger in those cases then actually take the feedback. Everyone is the hero of their own story.

In my experience, this viewpoint is most strong in people whose actions are the most direct cause of their social issues. Almost always these people strongly refuse to admit that their actions should or are under their control. At which point others start to avoid them.

There are large scale social stratifications due to various things however individuals live in a very wide band in my experience. Some make choices that put them at the top of that band and others make choices that put them at the bottom.

Let's take two of your examples:

> how much money someone has put in someone’s pocket

> who someone knows

Careers choices directly lead to having higher income and more money. Socializing and putting effort into building a social network gives you more people to know. Both are to a decent degree under someone's control and based on their actions. You claiming otherwise is exactly proving my point on people wanting an excuse for their poor historical actions.

But you said:

>Training shifts the probability - but doesn't change the fact that the output is a sampling based on input and the model?

So which is it?

>You're essentially suggesting we play Turing's Guessing Game; if your LLM can guess my response to any prompt - then it can be said to have modeled how I would reply to those prompts. Expand the prompts far enough, and you could reasonably argue the LLM models me.

I'm merely noting that your argument that "training+input=>output is the problem" applies to humans. There's other arguments for and against LLMs however I'm simply pointing out that your argument isn't a good one.