No, opposing LLMs isn't "purity culture."
-
No, opposing LLMs isn't "purity culture." I've seen this now from quite a few different people, and I disagree vehemently. It is good, actually, to have moral principles and hold to them, even when people with more money than you find said principles annoying.
@xgranade Calling opposing LLM's and their social consequences 'purity culture' sounds like the dumbest ass Democratic partisan nonsense I've heard since they called Bernie a sexist.
-
@xgranade i don’t know what ‘opposing LLMs’ means for someone who doesn’t develop software.
Opposing the use of gen-AI tools in your creative endeavors? Sure. But that’s not much of a principled position as it does not affect anything or anyone but you and what you make.
To stand against the massive effort to defraud investors and steal public money which is what this whole AI thing is mostly about and what empowers the development of software using LLM’s to harm people
You will have to take a firmer and more proactive stand than just not using LLMs.
@subterfugue @xgranade This isn't just about money or code friend.
Ever heard of AI psychosis? Children who were directed by AI software to kill themselves? Environmental devastation from training and using AI models? Trauma caused to underpaid workers in the global south, without which these AI models would never have functioned in the first place? People getting fed lies about their own health by using an AI model to find out what ails them? Misinformation caused by people using AI software like a search engine? Etc. Etc. Etc.
AI is a fascist project and an irredeemable system. Doing all we can to reject and destroy AI is one of the biggest moral imperatives of our generation.
-
No, opposing LLMs isn't "purity culture." I've seen this now from quite a few different people, and I disagree vehemently. It is good, actually, to have moral principles and hold to them, even when people with more money than you find said principles annoying.
@xgranade being vegan can be called purity culture but first order effects of not being vegan cannot be dismissed without acknowledging "I'm causing harm"
-
@subterfugue @xgranade This isn't just about money or code friend.
Ever heard of AI psychosis? Children who were directed by AI software to kill themselves? Environmental devastation from training and using AI models? Trauma caused to underpaid workers in the global south, without which these AI models would never have functioned in the first place? People getting fed lies about their own health by using an AI model to find out what ails them? Misinformation caused by people using AI software like a search engine? Etc. Etc. Etc.
AI is a fascist project and an irredeemable system. Doing all we can to reject and destroy AI is one of the biggest moral imperatives of our generation.
-
@subterfugue @xgranade No, I meant to respond to you. AI is causing those harms, so rejecting and fiercely opposing the use of AI is harm reduction. Get it?
-
@subterfugue @xgranade No, I meant to respond to you. AI is causing those harms, so rejecting and fiercely opposing the use of AI is harm reduction. Get it?
@pip @xgranade it isn’t. It has no measurable effect on economic behavior which is completely disconnected from consumers.
Blocking their data centers or getting congress to regulate them. Forcing auditors to expose the fraud that finances it… etc… those impact this.
Going after the wealthy driving yhis could too.
Not using claude or chatgpt has no effect whatsoever Z
-
@pip @xgranade it isn’t. It has no measurable effect on economic behavior which is completely disconnected from consumers.
Blocking their data centers or getting congress to regulate them. Forcing auditors to expose the fraud that finances it… etc… those impact this.
Going after the wealthy driving yhis could too.
Not using claude or chatgpt has no effect whatsoever Z
No. That's provably false. Investors rely on hype to make money. We, the public, can reject their advances and loudly proclaim that we have no confidence in their investments.
-
No. That's provably false. Investors rely on hype to make money. We, the public, can reject their advances and loudly proclaim that we have no confidence in their investments.
-
I wouldn't be saying all this if it was just Doctorow, I'm even fine disagreeing with people I deeply respect. But he's not the only one saying shit like this, and I think it's worth calling out the broader rhetorical point.
@xgranade I've fallen off reading Doctorow. Is he boosting the hallucination engines lately? That would be surprising but I just haven't listened to him recently.
-
No, opposing LLMs isn't "purity culture." I've seen this now from quite a few different people, and I disagree vehemently. It is good, actually, to have moral principles and hold to them, even when people with more money than you find said principles annoying.
@xgranade I have to wonder whether Cory Doctorow has taught a class lately (as opposed to speaking engagements), and waded through a pile of middling written assignments submitted by students incapable of answering simple questions on the subject matter. There's a reason competent instructors aren't fans of this technological, er, advancement.
-
No, opposing LLMs isn't "purity culture." I've seen this now from quite a few different people, and I disagree vehemently. It is good, actually, to have moral principles and hold to them, even when people with more money than you find said principles annoying.
@xgranade What is an LLM?
-
@xgranade@wandering.shop opposing LLMs is an integrity culture, not purity.
-
No, opposing LLMs isn't "purity culture." I've seen this now from quite a few different people, and I disagree vehemently. It is good, actually, to have moral principles and hold to them, even when people with more money than you find said principles annoying.
@xgranade I still keep hoping the Doctorow quote was just him doing a shit job of explaining his stance and he'll elaborate or that it's not true or is a misquote or something, because Doctorow was one of the few people left I agreed with on literally everything involved in tech and almost seems to be fundamentally counter to statements I recall him saying mere months prior.
I don't speak about this part of my opposition to its usage because I don't know what to actually do about this happening to people. It feels like I'm watching a bubonic scale parasite spread to everyone who even looks at a computer fondly for half a second and feeds on specifically the parts of their brain in charge of critical thinking and any and all technical skill that isn't just vibe coding or asking the LLM why it isn't working.
-
I wouldn't be saying all this if it was just Doctorow, I'm even fine disagreeing with people I deeply respect. But he's not the only one saying shit like this, and I think it's worth calling out the broader rhetorical point.
@xgranade repeating a point i've seen mentioned elsewhere its important we also do something with that disagreement like as an example continuing the culture of helping each other as it pertains to programming because presumably at some point it'll stop being pushed this hard and we are back to requiring this culture to continue after instead of it being lost knowledge that we never get back to -
R relay@relay.an.exchange shared this topic
-
No, opposing LLMs isn't "purity culture." I've seen this now from quite a few different people, and I disagree vehemently. It is good, actually, to have moral principles and hold to them, even when people with more money than you find said principles annoying.
@xgranade I'm sure there's *some* people somewhere opposing LLMs just because the cool people in their peer group do and they want to virtue-signal, and they'll be hunted down and dragged out as an example of a "typical" LLM hater; just like the nazis will gleefully point out if a trans person detransitions. Plenty of people have good reasons to oppose the use of LLMs on grid of them being harmful, and question the logic of people who use them.
-
No, opposing LLMs isn't "purity culture." I've seen this now from quite a few different people, and I disagree vehemently. It is good, actually, to have moral principles and hold to them, even when people with more money than you find said principles annoying.
@xgranade tbh i would agree with this, i can say LLMs are bad from first principals, because i actually have first principals; and not just 'did big authority figure say this bad/good' or whatever the fuck;
but i would _also_ say that some* of the AI hate i have seen, seems to come off more like purity culture, where ai is just bad "just because" ..
but i wouldn't say that about every single opposition to LLMs ever, and probably not the vast majority of them ..
-
No, opposing LLMs isn't "purity culture." I've seen this now from quite a few different people, and I disagree vehemently. It is good, actually, to have moral principles and hold to them, even when people with more money than you find said principles annoying.
Especially when money is colouring perceptions of utility.
-
@subterfugue @xgranade This isn't just about money or code friend.
Ever heard of AI psychosis? Children who were directed by AI software to kill themselves? Environmental devastation from training and using AI models? Trauma caused to underpaid workers in the global south, without which these AI models would never have functioned in the first place? People getting fed lies about their own health by using an AI model to find out what ails them? Misinformation caused by people using AI software like a search engine? Etc. Etc. Etc.
AI is a fascist project and an irredeemable system. Doing all we can to reject and destroy AI is one of the biggest moral imperatives of our generation.
@pip @subterfugue @xgranade yknow .. i dont think OP saying that their using LLMs to harm people and scaming the public, is a pro-AI stance, but thats just a guess
-
I wouldn't be saying all this if it was just Doctorow, I'm even fine disagreeing with people I deeply respect. But he's not the only one saying shit like this, and I think it's worth calling out the broader rhetorical point.
@xgranade
Here's an excellent article by @tante criticising that broader rhetorical point: https://tante.cc/2026/02/20/acting-ethical-in-an-imperfect-world/It's really long, but totally worth the time IMO.
Somewhat tangentially, the backlash on the fedi along the lines of "Cory considered bad now" prompted tante to write a followup article which really gets one thinking: https://tante.cc/2026/02/20/on-alliances/
I recommend reading both.
-
No, opposing LLMs isn't "purity culture." I've seen this now from quite a few different people, and I disagree vehemently. It is good, actually, to have moral principles and hold to them, even when people with more money than you find said principles annoying.
