LLMs don’t respect anything either

If you presuppose that LLMs are evil, then of course you won't be able to understand why someone might reference "responsible use of LLMs" when after all there's no such thing as responsible use of evil. But they are not fundamentally evil, no more than the transistor is at least.

There is a lot wrong with the use of LLMs and the companies behind many popular LLMs that is valid to criticize but it seems like you're against the technology itself. There's no need to bring things like racism or exploitation (which one could say is associated with <i>any</i> computer technology) when there are valid criticisms of its use.

Neural networks (of which LLMs are a subset) have a great amount of good use. They can simulate protein confirmations with high accuracy and can be used for improving medication and curing disease. They can be used to detect cancer by analyzing medical images. They can scan PRs to find vulnerabilities before they get merged that would otherwise be exploited by genuinely evil state actors (NSA, GRU etc). They can assist people speaking underrepresented languages to communicate better with other cultures.

But they can also be used to trick people into forming parasocial relationships. They can be used to spread customized misinformation. They can be used to target people for military strikes or for surveillance. They can be used to flood art sites with regurgitated low-effort slop. And of course in their insatiable need for information, they can DDoS websites with their spiders as they try to find new training material. But "assist in generating a patch and review it" is not evil. It's responsible, depending on the quality (and ease of maintainability) of the patch itself.