Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Brite
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (Cyborg)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Brand Logo

CIRCLE WITH A DOT

  1. Home
  2. Uncategorized
  3. No, opposing LLMs isn't "purity culture."

No, opposing LLMs isn't "purity culture."

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Uncategorized
148 Posts 51 Posters 233 Views
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • xgranade@wandering.shopX xgranade@wandering.shop

    @codinghorror To get to my original point, then, if you believe as I do that it is bad to use tools developed under eugenicist philosophies, that predominantly profit and fund fascists, that carry inordinate environmental costs, that are based on stolen labor, that act as automated scabs, and that don't work, then an opposition to those same tools is a moral position and not one of "purity culture."

    xgranade@wandering.shopX This user is from outside of this forum
    xgranade@wandering.shopX This user is from outside of this forum
    xgranade@wandering.shop
    wrote last edited by
    #136

    @codinghorror I've made my arguments for each of those many times, it's beside the point here. But critically, none of the above requires me to be correct in my beliefs — only that I have reached those rationally if perhaps based on incomplete or flawed data. In which case, make that argument (not to me, as noted above)! But it's intellectually dishonest to say that that opposition is "purity culture."

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • codinghorror@infosec.exchangeC codinghorror@infosec.exchange

      @eschaton @xgranade and I wouldn't say "inevitable" just "this tool has practical uses". Remember that I really, really dislike ALL software by default. All of it. I'm surprised when I don't.

      eschaton@mastodon.socialE This user is from outside of this forum
      eschaton@mastodon.socialE This user is from outside of this forum
      eschaton@mastodon.social
      wrote last edited by
      #137

      @codinghorror @xgranade See? You’re not a data point against the people pushing LLM inevitability, you’re taking a more measured approach than they are. 😉 Those people are doing absolutely *insane* things like tracking LLM usage metrics and saying that’ll be factored into performance reviews. (Like is happening at Microsoft with Copilot.)

      codinghorror@infosec.exchangeC 1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • xgranade@wandering.shopX xgranade@wandering.shop

        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.

        O This user is from outside of this forum
        O This user is from outside of this forum
        oldmikie@mastodon.social
        wrote last edited by
        #138

        @xgranade moral principles is a good thing but has nothing to do with LLM or purity culture.

        1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • eschaton@mastodon.socialE eschaton@mastodon.social

          @codinghorror @xgranade See? You’re not a data point against the people pushing LLM inevitability, you’re taking a more measured approach than they are. 😉 Those people are doing absolutely *insane* things like tracking LLM usage metrics and saying that’ll be factored into performance reviews. (Like is happening at Microsoft with Copilot.)

          codinghorror@infosec.exchangeC This user is from outside of this forum
          codinghorror@infosec.exchangeC This user is from outside of this forum
          codinghorror@infosec.exchange
          wrote last edited by
          #139

          @eschaton @xgranade well, I am totally with y'all on that 🤗

          xgranade@wandering.shopX 1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • codinghorror@infosec.exchangeC codinghorror@infosec.exchange

            @eschaton @xgranade well, I am totally with y'all on that 🤗

            xgranade@wandering.shopX This user is from outside of this forum
            xgranade@wandering.shopX This user is from outside of this forum
            xgranade@wandering.shop
            wrote last edited by
            #140

            @codinghorror @eschaton Hey, don't put words in my mouth, I'm not part of that "y'all." I do not agree that doing propaganda work for some of the worst people on the planet, whether intentionally or not, counts as "measured."

            But that's what you're doing right now by arguing in favor of LLMs.

            xgranade@wandering.shopX 1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • xgranade@wandering.shopX xgranade@wandering.shop

              @codinghorror @eschaton Hey, don't put words in my mouth, I'm not part of that "y'all." I do not agree that doing propaganda work for some of the worst people on the planet, whether intentionally or not, counts as "measured."

              But that's what you're doing right now by arguing in favor of LLMs.

              xgranade@wandering.shopX This user is from outside of this forum
              xgranade@wandering.shopX This user is from outside of this forum
              xgranade@wandering.shop
              wrote last edited by
              #141

              @codinghorror @eschaton Given how messy this exchange has gotten, let me pull back slightly. I made a claim, that opposition to LLMs is not an example of "purity culture."

              You, despite my explicit ask to not, came into my replies to make a separate but related claim: namely, that LLMs are sometimes useful, and implicitly that that utility is sufficiently great as to justify their ethical problems.

              xgranade@wandering.shopX 1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • xgranade@wandering.shopX xgranade@wandering.shop

                @codinghorror @eschaton Given how messy this exchange has gotten, let me pull back slightly. I made a claim, that opposition to LLMs is not an example of "purity culture."

                You, despite my explicit ask to not, came into my replies to make a separate but related claim: namely, that LLMs are sometimes useful, and implicitly that that utility is sufficiently great as to justify their ethical problems.

                xgranade@wandering.shopX This user is from outside of this forum
                xgranade@wandering.shopX This user is from outside of this forum
                xgranade@wandering.shop
                wrote last edited by
                #142

                @codinghorror @eschaton While I explicitly said I didn't get into the second point, as the Discourse™ has gotten *incredibly* tedious by now, fine. You seem to insist on having that discussion out in my replies anyway.

                To that end, I laid out several reasons that I find the claim that LLMs are "just a tool" odious: the euginicist origin, the fascist way they're funded and developed, that they attack and undermine labor, that they impose extreme environmental cost, and that they don't work.

                xgranade@wandering.shopX 1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • xgranade@wandering.shopX xgranade@wandering.shop

                  @codinghorror @eschaton While I explicitly said I didn't get into the second point, as the Discourse™ has gotten *incredibly* tedious by now, fine. You seem to insist on having that discussion out in my replies anyway.

                  To that end, I laid out several reasons that I find the claim that LLMs are "just a tool" odious: the euginicist origin, the fascist way they're funded and developed, that they attack and undermine labor, that they impose extreme environmental cost, and that they don't work.

                  xgranade@wandering.shopX This user is from outside of this forum
                  xgranade@wandering.shopX This user is from outside of this forum
                  xgranade@wandering.shop
                  wrote last edited by
                  #143

                  @codinghorror @eschaton You've been very clear that you disagree with that latter point, and also that you expect I will find your disagreement compelling. I don't. It's an extraordinary claim that spicy autocomplete would produce the results ascribed to it, and that claim requires correspondingly extraordinary evidence. Anecdotes are a form of evidence, but without understanding the selection bias that goes into their collection, not on their own sufficient to show extraordinary claims.

                  xgranade@wandering.shopX 1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • xgranade@wandering.shopX xgranade@wandering.shop

                    @codinghorror @eschaton You've been very clear that you disagree with that latter point, and also that you expect I will find your disagreement compelling. I don't. It's an extraordinary claim that spicy autocomplete would produce the results ascribed to it, and that claim requires correspondingly extraordinary evidence. Anecdotes are a form of evidence, but without understanding the selection bias that goes into their collection, not on their own sufficient to show extraordinary claims.

                    xgranade@wandering.shopX This user is from outside of this forum
                    xgranade@wandering.shopX This user is from outside of this forum
                    xgranade@wandering.shop
                    wrote last edited by
                    #144

                    @codinghorror @eschaton But fine, you disagree, I believe, as you've said earlier. I think you are very wrong on that, but I don't think either of us are budging on that right now.

                    Do you refute or disagree with the other points? Do you believe that there is some degree to which LLMs could, if they worked well enough, justify their usage given those problems?

                    xgranade@wandering.shopX codinghorror@infosec.exchangeC 2 Replies Last reply
                    0
                    • xgranade@wandering.shopX xgranade@wandering.shop

                      @codinghorror @eschaton But fine, you disagree, I believe, as you've said earlier. I think you are very wrong on that, but I don't think either of us are budging on that right now.

                      Do you refute or disagree with the other points? Do you believe that there is some degree to which LLMs could, if they worked well enough, justify their usage given those problems?

                      xgranade@wandering.shopX This user is from outside of this forum
                      xgranade@wandering.shopX This user is from outside of this forum
                      xgranade@wandering.shop
                      wrote last edited by
                      #145

                      @codinghorror @eschaton To be clear, I don't think you owe me any answers. I'm just one woman who's been doing this shit for decades, and who knows what the fuck she's talking about, but whatever.

                      It's that you made the claim *to me*, and have used that claim to justify that opposition to LLMs is pseudoreligous "zealotry." But you haven't addressed any of the substance of the opposition beyond putting forward one anecdote that I can't personally evaluate the veracity of.

                      xgranade@wandering.shopX 1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      • xgranade@wandering.shopX xgranade@wandering.shop

                        @codinghorror @eschaton To be clear, I don't think you owe me any answers. I'm just one woman who's been doing this shit for decades, and who knows what the fuck she's talking about, but whatever.

                        It's that you made the claim *to me*, and have used that claim to justify that opposition to LLMs is pseudoreligous "zealotry." But you haven't addressed any of the substance of the opposition beyond putting forward one anecdote that I can't personally evaluate the veracity of.

                        xgranade@wandering.shopX This user is from outside of this forum
                        xgranade@wandering.shopX This user is from outside of this forum
                        xgranade@wandering.shop
                        wrote last edited by
                        #146

                        @codinghorror @eschaton So far, the justification you've given for the "zealotry" comment has been almost entirely about the *shape* of the claims I made, almost without any reference to the *substance*.

                        This strikes me as a very strange way to approach other human beings and moral decisions in general.

                        Is there any strong claim that you would consider to not be "zealotry," or any degree to which a claim could be evidenced such that it would not be "zealotry" to you?

                        1 Reply Last reply
                        0
                        • xgranade@wandering.shopX xgranade@wandering.shop

                          @codinghorror @eschaton But fine, you disagree, I believe, as you've said earlier. I think you are very wrong on that, but I don't think either of us are budging on that right now.

                          Do you refute or disagree with the other points? Do you believe that there is some degree to which LLMs could, if they worked well enough, justify their usage given those problems?

                          codinghorror@infosec.exchangeC This user is from outside of this forum
                          codinghorror@infosec.exchangeC This user is from outside of this forum
                          codinghorror@infosec.exchange
                          wrote last edited by
                          #147

                          @xgranade @eschaton yes, I do.. jpeg for words has a lot of solid use cases but it is indeed lossy and has pros and cons.. there is nuance

                          xgranade@wandering.shopX 1 Reply Last reply
                          0
                          • codinghorror@infosec.exchangeC codinghorror@infosec.exchange

                            @xgranade @eschaton yes, I do.. jpeg for words has a lot of solid use cases but it is indeed lossy and has pros and cons.. there is nuance

                            xgranade@wandering.shopX This user is from outside of this forum
                            xgranade@wandering.shopX This user is from outside of this forum
                            xgranade@wandering.shop
                            wrote last edited by
                            #148

                            @codinghorror @eschaton Perhaps that's the root of our impasse, then. I fairly firmly believe that if something does that much harm to the environment, to labor movements, and to victims of fascism, it cannot be justified by appeals to its efficacy alone.

                            I suspect that if we cannot agree on basic moral precepts like "don't help fascists get rich" and "don't be a scab," there's probably not much hope for a favorable resolution.

                            1 Reply Last reply
                            0
                            • em0nm4stodon@infosec.exchangeE em0nm4stodon@infosec.exchange shared this topic
                            Reply
                            • Reply as topic
                            Log in to reply
                            • Oldest to Newest
                            • Newest to Oldest
                            • Most Votes


                            • Login

                            • Login or register to search.
                            • First post
                              Last post
                            0
                            • Categories
                            • Recent
                            • Tags
                            • Popular
                            • World
                            • Users
                            • Groups