They're also explicitly designed to not work on a rigid system of rules. That's the entire point of this field of AI. If you want AI that follows explicit rules to the letter, expert systems are still alive and kicking.

It seems unreasonable to expect a system that you say isn't human, which I don't disagree with, to behave "better" than the thing you say it isn't.

In one breath you invite comparison, while at the same time you seem to be denying that same comparison.

> It seems wild to me that folks are shrugging their shoulders at that.

I'm not shrugging my shoulders simply by providing explanations, I would ask that you stop using such rhetoric.

The LLMs not only lack those incentives, but they’re full of contradictory moralities from all the text it has ingested from different cultures.

LLMs need their own safeguards, and they’re not that easy to design, and they often look nothing like the systems humans have. With a prompt like the one above, there are essentially zero except that which is built into the model, and those safeguards are necessarily weak to avoid gimping the model in other legitimate general uses.