It makes perfect sense. Motors don't act like they have intent, which by the way is all that matters for real world consequences not whether you believe it "really" has intent.

Not every analogy makes sense. This just isn't one of them.

I don't think chatgpt acts like it has intent either. It acts only when I tell it to, in only the way I tell it to. The "alignment" here only serves to slap me, the user, on the wrist abs tell me I'm naughty for daring to ask about how fusion reactors work, or for asking details on how a certain historical scam worked, or asking it to write a story containing an overweight person...

Oh it does. Intent isn't just about what it tries to do. It's also the path of the conversation.

Even with your definition, that's a chatGPT thing not an LLM thing. Talk to Bing for a while and see how much intent it "doesn't have" when you're forced to reset the chat prematurely because it simply won't talk to you anymore or do what you ask.

Or take it a step further and plug some LLM into say Autogen and just have it run and do whatever.

I think ChatGPT has intent in the same way as the Python interpreter has intent. And lo and behold, another discussion on AI ends up in semantics and poorly thought-out analogies.

Until we define "intent", we'll continue argue about screwdrivers and hammers.

Your python interpreter can't decide to execute a program you didn't write it to. Or do you have trouble controlling your Python interpreter?

I know my rustc will get mad at my programs and refuse to compile them.