Are you arguing that if LLMs were unethical then they would have been destroyed, but they have not been destroyed, so they must not be unethical?

If so, you need to show how something needing to be done necessarily results in it actually being done. Many things that need to be done are not actually done.

No, I'm afraid that's not what I argued; my comment was normative, not half of an fallacy of the inverse.

Alright. Well, now that we've had two guesses in this thread, maybe you can reveal what you were really arguing and what the proof was?

LLMs technology is widespread, widely available, effective

Posting LLMs content is cheap, easy, undetectable

Bad actors (or just greedy) are heavily incentivised to use and not to disclose LLMs use

It then follows that LLMs, by their nature, lead inevitably to 'grotesquely unethical' behaviour.

There are no guard rails, nothing, to stop LLMs being used in grotesquely unethical ways.

Other things that were grotesquely unethical: unit 731, tuskegee syphilis study, mengele, etc.

LLMs are inherently flawed and their consequences monstrous, thus they have to be destroyed.

Given, of course, that we agree on all this being 'grotesquely unethical'.

No, it's unethical because it's human experimentation.

Experimenting on humans requires consent.

To be fair, it's experimenting on redditors which are mostly bots now anyway.

I am apparently not smart enough to be able to derive that trivial proof. Can you spell it out for me?

If I were to fathom a guess it would be (the argument that) that LLMs have been a science experiment upon humanity, that many of us haven't consented to.

Imagine if OpenAI instead crawled the Earth for shedded human hair and skin cell samples, did advanced genetic engineering and started growing GMO humans and put them in society "for free", would there be an equivalent outrage? I honestly don't know.