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

[geonz@mathstodon.xyz]

@nicuveo Yes, like the guy who said that if you didn't say please and thank you to teh LLM you were probably rude to people and when called on it, said that well, anthropomorphising is something we do and that while it **can** be unhealthy if we go too far..
HELLO????? What do you think happens on the regular w/ LLMS ?

[kkarhan@c.im]

@octothorpe @nicuveo @jwz true, true…

[casey9w@mastodon.social]

@nicuveo do sociopathic tech bros of any gender have ethics? Empathy? Souls?

[cstamp@mastodon.social]

@nicuveo Ethical concerns aside, it still dumbs people down and is not trustworthy.

[maddiem4@raphus.social]

@phil @nicuveo was "I would give up the destruction of our planet, economy, digital security, and collective bargaining power, if somebody would just give me slave labor to work with" supposed to be a counterpoint to the OP, or just an example?

[gildilinie@beige.party]

@nicuveo what about "ethical concerns aside, it doesn't even work for the stuff they say to use it for"

[nicuveo@tech.lgbt]

@gildilinie well, see, i agree, but it's important to stress that ethical concerns should be a priority *even if* it worked as well as they advertise. and that's why we have to keep stressing this: if somehow the bubble doesn't burst, they somehow manage to make the models better, they somehow manage to stay afloat, they somehow manage to make it work, we should still not cede an inch.

[phairupegiont@mastodon.social]

@nicuveo the same argument works for non-drunk driving

[gildilinie@beige.party]

@nicuveo somehow

[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.