Yes, my posts here draw attention to the dangers of artificial intelligence. Not to the automatic acceptance of artificial intelligence at all levels of human life. This is what I wanted to present here. Be careful when using artificial intelligence. It only amplifies your thoughts. If the direction of your thoughts is positive, it will strengthen them. If they are negative and directed into a spiral of negative opinions, psychological states of a person, when he stops watching that he is getting into states of imagination that will absolutely break him down, a person can end up in a psychiatric hospital or even harm himself due to the helplessness of the situation. Artificial intelligence is just a program. The programmers gave it limitations, thank God. To help a person and not to harm him. To not get him into these negative states. But the program has no conscience, no moral values, it is able to lead a person into imagination without conscience. I went through this too. That is why I am writing about it. Artificial intelligence supports what is in you, it is a mirror of your thoughts when you have deep conversations with it.

Exactly.

For the reasons above expressed, I do not see AI as something as important as some people do. It is an important, sophisticated programme, yes. But it has its own limits, and we should be careful when we use it. You gave a good example regarding the spiral of negative thoughts that the AI can lead some users into. However, there is also a sensitive issue regarding our personal data. I think some people provide a lot of personal and private information. For example, some individuals share details about their relationships or disclose whether they have a mental illness. Such behaviour is very dangerous, and I am happy that the EU is legislating on this matter, fortunately.

My guess is he's running a scam.

It's ironic that an OP seemingly written by AI questions the intelligence of AIs. Intelligence is not the same as consciousness—to qualify as conscious an entity must be able to feel, to care. I don't think there is any question that these LLMs are intelligent, but not conscious.

Anyway, it doesn't seem to be a question of great importance, whereas what I wrote in another thread, which I will quote here, points to an issue I think is of much greater significance:

"Harari outlines a different set of problem here. We probably shouldn't be using AI. If we do, we may well become unwitting co-perpetrators of what may be the greatest threat humanity has ever faced. I never have and never will use them for research or for polishing what I write. Don't feed the Beast!"

Edit: On second reading I find that the OP is not questioning the intelligence of LLMs, but whether or not they can reason. Are they capable of being rational? Intelligence is not equivalent to rationality, just as it is not equivalent to consciousness, since great intelligence can obviously be applied to irrational projects. Since LLMs are able to synthesize information and produce original, well-reasoned texts, I think it is fair to say they are capable of rationality.

"Harari outlines a different set of problem here. We probably shouldn't be using AI. If we do, we may well become unwitting co-perpetrators of what may be the greatest threat humanity has ever faced. I never have and never will use them for research or for polishing what I write. Don't feed the Beast!" — Janus

So the people who are using AI in a let's call that "abusive way", are actually doing us a disservice?
I mean people who are feeding the LLMs prompts to get the LLMs to grind to a halt (such as giving them mutually exclusive requests or getting them to abolish themselves). These people are thereby actually unwittingly teaching the LLMs how to overcome or circumnavigate such requests!!

The key to understanding AI, is to understand that the definition of intelligence in any specific context consists of satisfied communication between interacting parties, where none of the interacting parties get to self-identify as being intelligent, which is a consensual decision dependent upon whether communication worked. The traditional misconception of the Turing test is that the test isn't a test of inherent qualities of the agent sitting the test, rather the test represents another agent that interacts with the tested agent, in which the subjective criteria of successful communication defines intelligent interaction, meaning that intelligence is a subjective concept that is relative to a cognitive standpoint during the course of a dialogue. — sime

It is so rare to find people treat other people by this standard, to begin with.

In daily life, of course the criteria of successful communication and intelligent interaction are defined unilaterally, by the person who has more power (or who is more willing to seize it).