> But I don’t know if I should be denied access because of those people.
That's the majority of people though, if you really think that I assume you wouldn't have a problem with needing to be licenced to have this kind of access, right?
Depends. If you're talking about a free online test I can take to prove I have basic critical thinking skills, maybe, but that's still a slippery slope. As a legal adult with the right to consent to all sorts of things, I shouldn't have to prove my competence to someone else's satisfaction before I'm allowed autonomy to make my own personal decisions.
If what you're suggesting is a license that would cost money and/or a non-trivial amount of time to obtain, it's a nonstarter. That's how you create an unregulated black market and cause more harm than leaving the situation alone would have. See: the wars on drugs, prostitutes, and alcohol.
People are very good at ignoring warnings, I see it all the time.
There's no way to design it to minimise misinformation, the "ground truth" problem of LLM alignment is still unsolved.
The only system we currently have to allow people to verify they know what they are doing is through licencing: you go to training, you are tested that you understand the training, and you are allowed to do the dangerous thing. Are you ok with needing this to be able to access a potentially dangerous tool for the untrained?
There is no way to stop this at this point. Local and/or open models are capable enough that there is just a short window before attempts at restricting this kind of thing will just lead to a proliferation of services outside the reach of whichever jurisdiction decides to regulate this.
If you want working regulation for this, it will need to focus on warnings and damage mitigation, not denying access.
But I don’t know if I should be denied access because of those people.