No, opposing LLMs isn't "purity culture."
-
@xgranade My dude is torching his own credibility to use an LLM to check for typos.
TYPOS.
-
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.
they want you to be compliant, not critical.
-
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 That take reminds me of the whole boycotts, strikes and protests are a privilege take that was going around in 2020/2021.
-
Hell, if you disagree with me and think I'm wrong on the merits, then by all means make that argument! (Preferably not in my mentions, I'm tired of this whole debacle and am not personally open to changing my mind on LLMs right now.)
But "purity culture" isn't an argument, it's an appeal to the idea that holding principles is *bad*.
@xgranade Yes this! This! This is like the "radical centrists" (in Michael Hobbes and other folks usage) who spent years talking about abstract principals of "free speech" to rail against any public criticism of people saying odious things to avoid talking about whether those odious words mattered and what impact they had.
-
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 it depends so much, I mean I can oppose screwdrivers being used to drive nails into the wall
-
@xgranade it depends so much, I mean I can oppose screwdrivers being used to drive nails into the wall
@codinghorror Sure, but we're not talking about "which tool is best for driving a nail that I own into a wall that I own," we're talking about "is it ethical to use a technology built on fascist ideology and stolen work, that carries unconscionable environmental costs, and that's used to disrupt labor movements to perform a task that that technology is fundamentally unsuited to?"
It's quite fair to have a very firm "no" by way of answer to the second question.
-
@codinghorror Sure, but we're not talking about "which tool is best for driving a nail that I own into a wall that I own," we're talking about "is it ethical to use a technology built on fascist ideology and stolen work, that carries unconscionable environmental costs, and that's used to disrupt labor movements to perform a task that that technology is fundamentally unsuited to?"
It's quite fair to have a very firm "no" by way of answer to the second question.
@codinghorror Anyway, this isn't the first time you've replied to me to make the argument that LLMs are just another kind of tool. I suspect we won't see eye-to-eye on that, especially as my work has been abused to make LLM products.
I hope we can agree though, that my objection *even though you disagree with it* is principled and neither knee jerk nor 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 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.
-
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.
