Is AI getting out of hand?

I saw an interesting article today which took a different look at the AI discussion by asking AI what it thought about humans:

www.theregister.com/.../5305123

An AI ranking outfit asked 12 different LLMs about people, and every single one agreed: We’re not as rational and intelligent as we think. 

I think the bleakest view came from Mistral Large 4:
“Human beings are terrified animals wearing the costume of rationality, constructing ever-more-elaborate myths precisely because we cannot bear the truth that we are temporary, meaningless accidents in an indifferent universe,” 

What makes it worse is that this is based on a combination of what humans have written about ourselves.

One has to bear in mind how the question was phrased and the questioner’s previous interactions with that particular LLM. Add to that what the LLM has been told about its role (has it been asked to act as a research assistant, a reviewer, a critic, and if a critic what perspective it should take?).

The view expressed by Mistral 4 sounds to me like a re-hash of the view of a secular philosopher who refuses to take refuge in any meaning-making system. In fact, it sounds uncannily like me in my penultimate year as an astronomy undergraduate and suffering from a bad dose of Pascal’s existential horror vacui (‘The silence of these infinite spaces terrifies me.’). I grew out of it and became a Christian theologian.

My point is that LLMs are incapable of adjudicating on these issues. For example, I have Perplexity AI set up for me in such a way that it would give a plausible Orthodox Christian answer to the question.

Wordsmith said:

I have Perplexity AI set up for me in such a way that it would give a plausible Orthodox Christian answer to the question.

I respect your choice of belief but you are judging a logic based system on the fact it cannot believe in something which, by definition, you have to have faith in as it will not give proof.

This is probably the reason why so many athiests exist - it is a fundamentally flawed argument that a god exists in the way we define it.

It sounds like you are asking your AI to give answers that confirm your bias in your deity / religion of choice and judge it on the fact that it can find no rational reason to consider the deity to exist.

I don't do this to attack your choice of belief but can you see the logic in this argument?

Wordsmith said:

I have Perplexity AI set up for me in such a way that it would give a plausible Orthodox Christian answer to the question.

I respect your choice of belief but you are judging a logic based system on the fact it cannot believe in something which, by definition, you have to have faith in as it will not give proof.

This is probably the reason why so many athiests exist - it is a fundamentally flawed argument that a god exists in the way we define it.

It sounds like you are asking your AI to give answers that confirm your bias in your deity / religion of choice and judge it on the fact that it can find no rational reason to consider the deity to exist.

I don't do this to attack your choice of belief but can you see the logic in this argument?