No, opposing LLMs isn't "purity culture."
-
"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
-
@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
@Li @subterfugue @xgranade It's a hard problem to solve but we have to fucking do it.
Yes, major political changes are needed. But this kind of thing has been done before, so we know have no reason to think it's impossible. We closed the hole in the ozone layer after all. And the knowledge to create mustard gas exists, yet it is not some daily horror the threatens us.
In the meantime, the ethical thing to do is to avoid and reject AI everywhere, while pushing for those political changes.
-
@Li @subterfugue @xgranade It's a hard problem to solve but we have to fucking do it.
Yes, major political changes are needed. But this kind of thing has been done before, so we know have no reason to think it's impossible. We closed the hole in the ozone layer after all. And the knowledge to create mustard gas exists, yet it is not some daily horror the threatens us.
In the meantime, the ethical thing to do is to avoid and reject AI everywhere, while pushing for those political changes.
@pip @subterfugue @xgranade i mean i dont disagree you shouldnt use AI, mainly because using it is giving information streight to fascists and also their already manipulating them to give information they approve of (e.g grok told to be overly transphobic and hate immegrants for example) avoid AI because it gives corperations an extreme amount of power over you and the information you receive and whatnot; sure; their also going to call the cops on you if you say the wrong thing; best to avoid using it, all are pretty good reasons to avoid id id say; but i dont think any of us disagree on that point rather just "not using it wont fix anything, thats capitalist bullshit"
-
@brianowen Thank goodness there's a man around to explain my own position to me.
-
@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?@mikalai I said what I meant to say. I guarantee that I actually intend to oppose LLMs *specifically* and not just because I don't control them.
-
-
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.
Addendum: since this has now rather dramatically escaped containment, I want to quickly note that if you reply to this thread in a completely embarrassing way, I reserve the right to be at least a bit rude in my responses.
-
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 You have to admit, though, that it's pretty impressive that "no thanks" is purity culture, and not "we need to keep sacrificing transistors and coal to manifest the libertarian god, and everybody who disagrees won't and shouldn't survive."
-
@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.
@xgranade LLMs told me something critical about my health that no healthcare professional -- and I have a whole team working on me, because I'm bonkers -- ever did. If you want to ask, ask, I can provide very detailed citations and proof.
-
@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.
@xgranade fair; I want to be alive, see earlier response.
