i am so tired of "ethical concerns aside" being a phrase i see every single time someone tries to defend the use of LLMs.

[nicuveo@tech.lgbt]

@gildilinie i agree it's not gonna happen; my point is just that we shouldn't argue about utility / usefulness when the debate is about ethics: debating about usefulness, even pointing out that LLMs suck (which they do, don't get me wrong) is elevating that topic to the same level.
in other words, to use a metaphor i saw in another thread: it's irrelevant whether the orphan-crushing machine is good for the economy or not. ^^"

[gildilinie@beige.party]

@nicuveo "i killed a dude and took his one billion dollar" and "i killed a man in Reno just to watch him die" are both unethical but very different situations

[pino@social.cologne]

@nicuveo That's how BigTech became BigTech in the last ~15-20 years. It's much older than the public discussions about LLM. You just haven't talked about ethics at all for a long time.

[disorderlyf@todon.eu]

@nicuveo I mean, I usually use it to say there's multiple layers to how shitty LLMs are, but mostly I reserve that for what I don't think the intended audience gives a shit about the suffering caused by the torment nexus.

[nicuveo@tech.lgbt]

@disorderlyf there's a huge difference between the criticism approach ("even putting ethics aside, there are a lot of issues with LLMs") and the defensive one ("but if you put ethics aside they have some value worth considering!"), IMHO. what you describe is the former, what i despise is the prevalence of the latter ^^

[disorderlyf@todon.eu]

@nicuveo I had a feeling that's where you stood on it, but I wasn't sure. In which case, it sounds like we're entirely in agreement, as I hear too many of these damned shills straight up pretending those problems don't exist and being like "but it is good now, actually"

[indigoparadox@mastodon.social]

@nicuveo Richard Stallman just did this toot opposing breathalyzers in cars: https://mastodon.xyz/@rms/116581752793267275

It's all tied together.

[phil@fed.bajsicki.com]

@MaddieM4@raphus.social @nicuveo@tech.lgbt
The former. I need to eat. Will you give me food?
I get food for the job I do. And medication. And a roof over my head.

Unless you can give me the same for work I'd do in a manner that satisfies you, the argument doesn't stand.

If anything, you're essentially saying "your health and safety don't matter, because the planet."

Sure, the planet. But I'm not going to martyr myself and my family for it.

Again: give me an alternative, and I'll gladly switch. If you can't, then we're at an impasse, because I still need to eat.

[shadsterling@mastodon.social]

@phil @nicuveo @MaddieM4 this situation where we’re not allowed to survive unless we kill our life support systems is why we need unions and workers rights and environmental regulations and so on. Nobody can hand you a solution on a silver platter, but almost everybody can do something to make the situation harder to maintain; merely expressing objections still contributes to normalizing valuing preserving life support, obeying in advance is not necessary

[shadsterling@mastodon.social]

@nicuveo https://mastodon.social/@ShadSterling/116582154915020435

[mrotteveel@mstdn.social]

@indigoparadox @nicuveo He says he is pro-breathalyzers in cars: "I think that if someone is convicted of driving under the influence, or something close to that, it is legitimate to attach a sensor-driven kill switch to stop per from driving while inebriated.", but the fact he links to a campaign against such things is pretty confusing.

[mrotteveel@mstdn.social]

@indigoparadox @nicuveo Seems like he is a quantum state where he is both for and against breathalyzers in cars.

[davey_cakes@mastodon.ie]

@phil @nicuveo @MaddieM4

How did you survive so long without this life-saving miracle technology?

Same way as me?

[jaxvent@lgbtqia.space]

@davey_cakes @phil @nicuveo @MaddieM4

Wanted to ask the same thing. Will they answer?

[phil@fed.bajsicki.com]

@davey_cakes@mastodon.ie @nicuveo@tech.lgbt @MaddieM4@raphus.social

Love the hate.

I was unemployed, miserable, separated from my partner, and on the verge of Bad Actions. Then I got a job that pays okay for where I live, was able to import my partner, pay off a good chunk of my credit, and get my health into a stable state.

Not because of AI, but because I spent my time obsessively learning about information security for a years or so. AI, however, is a pre-requisite for working where I do, because of severe understaffing.

At the same time, I can't afford to lose this job, because I'd soon go back to the previous state of affairs. Turns out, to nobody's surprise, nobody else is willing to pay for my food, medicine, or shelter.

Are you? Or, are you willing to provide free labor for my employer so I can quit using LLMs to get my work done?

[phil@fed.bajsicki.com]

@JaxVent@lgbtqia.space @davey_cakes@mastodon.ie @nicuveo@tech.lgbt @MaddieM4@raphus.social Just did. Really curious how my position can be argued against.

[jaxvent@lgbtqia.space]

@phil @davey_cakes @nicuveo @MaddieM4

You were asked "How did you survive so long without this life-saving miracle technology? "

[phil@fed.bajsicki.com]

@JaxVent@lgbtqia.space @davey_cakes@mastodon.ie @nicuveo@tech.lgbt @MaddieM4@raphus.social Barely, is the answer.

[phil@fed.bajsicki.com]

@davey_cakes@mastodon.ie @JaxVent@lgbtqia.space @nicuveo@tech.lgbt @MaddieM4@raphus.social Or rather, I should be more specific. The question is disingenuous because it assumes that "AI" is the solution to my problems, when it's merely a job tool I'm forced to use to maintain employment.

[jaxvent@lgbtqia.space]

@phil @davey_cakes @nicuveo @MaddieM4

I'm sorry you are in that position. No-one should be forced to use it.