No, opposing LLMs isn't "purity culture."
-
@dalias Doctorow seems to feel that this is what he would be doing; he finds the LLM useful. And some programmers I follow and respect feel that way about their LLM-based coding agents (using the big rented models, not a local one like Doctorow), that they'd be denying themselves something useful and putting themselves at a disadvantage for moral reasons.
@dalias To be clear, I'm not convinced by the proponents of LLM-based coding agents. I find the idea of having a statistical text generator pump out volumes of code from ambiguous natural language distasteful. And I sure wouldn't want that approach to be used for something like musl, where you clearly work on it deliberately, carefully, with no line of code wasted.
-
-
@xgranade My dude is torching his own credibility to use an LLM to check for typos.
TYPOS.
-
@cthos I think that's less an indictment of Doctorow and more one of the never-LLM crowd, who have clearly become dogmatic Puritans
-
@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
What if instead of "opposing use of LLM" we say as we mean "opposing use of tech you don't control", or something like this.
Can you, guys find better way to focus attention on the bad power dynamic at hand? -
@xgranade
What if instead of "opposing use of LLM" we say as we mean "opposing use of tech you don't control", or something like this.
Can you, guys find better way to focus attention on the bad power dynamic at hand?"But I don't control it!" is not a very compelling issue.
And it's not the most important issue for those who oppose Generative AI.
There are a number of compelling issues with Generative AI. And many of them, on their own, may rationally be enough to swear off of it, or even to ban it.
Insisting that everyone limit the argument to one relatively weak point is a fallacious argument, a logical fallicy.
-
@SRAZKVT @xgranade I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean, or by "my work" or "valuable," and that's not me trolling, I often have trouble understanding things that are obvious to others.
But what you say makes me think of means of production, which are all quite fully seized by capitalists. My thinking is it's quite funny to blow up their investments by e.g. disseminating distilled models (deepseek) or FOSS versions of software they try to sell
-
@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
@Li @subterfugue @xgranade OP is literally insisting that it doesn't matter if you use AI, as long as you're not using it to generate code. Yep, I would call that pro-AI.
-
"But I don't control it!" is not a very compelling issue.
And it's not the most important issue for those who oppose Generative AI.
There are a number of compelling issues with Generative AI. And many of them, on their own, may rationally be enough to swear off of it, or even to ban it.
Insisting that everyone limit the argument to one relatively weak point is a fallacious argument, a logical fallicy.
@JeffGrigg @xgranade
Well, we collectively took our eyes from the ball. Your not controlling tech in a technological world is the root of a problem.
Without already existing reliance on "tech you don't control" (+ some policy = big tech), there would be no giants forcing on us whatever-current-nonsense.
Let us focus on power play. Without underlying control, those players won't be in a position to tell whole world what to do. -
"But I don't control it!" is not a very compelling issue.
And it's not the most important issue for those who oppose Generative AI.
There are a number of compelling issues with Generative AI. And many of them, on their own, may rationally be enough to swear off of it, or even to ban it.
Insisting that everyone limit the argument to one relatively weak point is a fallacious argument, a logical fallicy.
@JeffGrigg @xgranade
If you control where datacenter is built, you wouldn't do harm, that people are against.
If you control, ....
Without control, we'll be playing an infinit whake-a-mole game. -
@violetmadder @Mimesatwork @xgranade What really annoyed me, apart from his justification, was him using the term, NeoLiberal because he knew that would raise some hackles
-
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 The issue I have is being dictated to by large corporations who make the LLM's on what is right and moral. When most of those companies are not moral themselves.
-
@Li @subterfugue @xgranade OP is literally insisting that it doesn't matter if you use AI, as long as you're not using it to generate code. Yep, I would call that pro-AI.
-
@Sickosocial @xgranade "Large Language Models" ChatGPT and stuff like that.
People (including me) like to differentiate these from the broader category of AI, because people do good stuff with AI tools without the externalities of LLMs.
@davey_cakes Oh, thank you so much for your answer!
-
-
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 this entire line of trying to discredit principledness reeks of that one study that concluded people on the autism spectrum are sticking to their principles too much. (when the test was about how much the test subjects stuck to a principle when nobody was there to witness them going against it.)
-
@subterfugue @pip @xgranade it reads more like their saying that "not using ai" doesnt do much to actually stop the proliferation of AI and AI companies dont need you to use it to push it everywjhere ..
-
@subterfugue @pip @xgranade it reads more like their saying that "not using ai" doesnt do much to actually stop the proliferation of AI and AI companies dont need you to use it to push it everywjhere ..
@Li @subterfugue @xgranade Agreed, but that is really problematic. It discourages people from taking action to break this horrendous system, and puts more people at risk of things like AI psychosis.
Aaron doesn't understand the danger we're in.
-
@Li @subterfugue @xgranade Agreed, but that is really problematic. It discourages people from taking action to break this horrendous system, and puts more people at risk of things like AI psychosis.
Aaron doesn't understand the danger we're in.
@pip @subterfugue @xgranade even if no one buys ai survailence states who want to ask a chatbot "cross reference these pictures from this protest with social media (or fuck "age verification" records) .. to get an answer (which they dont care if is wrong they just want an excuse to hurt people so)
and tbh the way to fight that is more involved than * just * not using AI .. i dont really know what you would do to stop that im not dumb enough to think any "legistation" will do anything (its only purpose is for the same people pushing ai to legitimizing violence and control towards other people, much like the ai survailence, and is written and "enforced" by those creating that in the first place) so idfk revolution ig? hacking the system and tearing it apart? bleh
