> LLMs are impossible to make safe in the same sense that humans cannot be made safe.

I am very conflicted by this sentence, the two halves being:

1. Yes, the futility of making LLM's "safe" in that rigorous way is insurmountable, barring a major algorithm rewrite, and nobody really knows what that could be yet. Anyone who says it's easy is glossing over details--or selling something.

2. No, the failure modes of LLMs are substantially different than humans. If someone thinks they're similar, then they will fail at estimating and containing the risks. Now, perhaps if the comparison was to a brain-damaged human hopped up on psychedelic mind-altering drugs...

Note that I'm distinguishing here between the LLM itself--the hyper-mad-libs story generator--versus regular programs around it.