You still don’t get it. It isn’t “the programmer”. It is the trainer behind the curtain, who selects and curates the training data set and retrains it if they don’t like how it sounds. If you train using the New York Times, the Economist, and Twitter pre-Musk, and then re-train using knobs the programmers have been pressured to provide, you get this.
Lack of debuggability and exact tracibility of the source of of false results, and the inability to pin responsibility to a person, even given the source code, is not a bug, its a feature.
If you think of what AI does as “if I asked XXX of a YYY person, what would it sound like” you understand how it can make up facts and accept huge cognitive dissonance.
When the governments, Big “Tech” social media, and congress paniced and started having discussions of “AI Safety”, the training sets and acceptable output were what it was about.
Same thing, you just are using semantics, but in reality you are saying that the person behind the curtain is a form of programmer regardless if you want to name it with some other word.
But even in your rebuke of my comments you state; then re-train using knobs the programmers have been pressured to provide. So, in reality you say it isn't programmers, then contradicting yourself with that statement. But you are inadvertently confirming that it's the programmers who are providing the knobs.
Now I will admit I do not fully understand how AI works. In other words, I do not have the training to recreate what they have created. However, as a human being who knows that machines, especially computers, work only as they are told to work via programs. They have no ability to "think" on their own, and that is what I have been stressing. Machines do not think on their own. If machines were to try & take over its human creator, it would have had to be programmed to act in that manner. It's not doing it because it has been provided an illusion of intelligence.