Yesterday, had an argument with an AI booster.
Uncategorized
28
Posts
20
Posters
0
Views
-
Yesterday, had an argument with an AI booster. I'm not going to link, both because I don't want to platform that and because I don't want anyone to go harass them. But what I thought was very interesting was that I asked point-blank if there was any degree to which ethical problems with LLMs could make them not want to use AI — they told me no, there was not, and implied that they evaluated AI purely on the basis of its efficacy.
-
Yesterday, had an argument with an AI booster. I'm not going to link, both because I don't want to platform that and because I don't want anyone to go harass them. But what I thought was very interesting was that I asked point-blank if there was any degree to which ethical problems with LLMs could make them not want to use AI — they told me no, there was not, and implied that they evaluated AI purely on the basis of its efficacy.
I don't have time nor the inclination to argue that point with them further when it comes to AI. But I do think there's a broader point that is worth critical examination, especially as tech continues to build out surveillance, age verification, automated filtering and censoring, and other tools that do immense damage when used by authoritarians.
We *cannot* afford to evaluate tech purely based on whether it "works" or not.
-
I don't have time nor the inclination to argue that point with them further when it comes to AI. But I do think there's a broader point that is worth critical examination, especially as tech continues to build out surveillance, age verification, automated filtering and censoring, and other tools that do immense damage when used by authoritarians.
We *cannot* afford to evaluate tech purely based on whether it "works" or not.
AI doesn't work¹, so it's easy to forget that larger point, I suspect? That *even if* AI did work (and again, it doesn't), it still would need to be critically examined from an ethical perspective.
Failing to do so is how we have massive surveillance networks today.
___
¹Here again, referring to the wave of current hype products. Boosters love wearing the ML shit that does work as a shield against criticism. -
AI doesn't work¹, so it's easy to forget that larger point, I suspect? That *even if* AI did work (and again, it doesn't), it still would need to be critically examined from an ethical perspective.
Failing to do so is how we have massive surveillance networks today.
___
¹Here again, referring to the wave of current hype products. Boosters love wearing the ML shit that does work as a shield against criticism.I'm not sure I'd say "AI doesn't work" anymore. It definitely doesn't "work" to the degree that the loudest boosters will claim it does. But like, I do think it's recently crossed a threshold where it can be a useful tool in the right hands.
Which I personally find very annoying since I too have moral qualms about the broader AI industry. E.g. the point about surveillance you're making I think is an important one.
-
Yesterday, had an argument with an AI booster. I'm not going to link, both because I don't want to platform that and because I don't want anyone to go harass them. But what I thought was very interesting was that I asked point-blank if there was any degree to which ethical problems with LLMs could make them not want to use AI — they told me no, there was not, and implied that they evaluated AI purely on the basis of its efficacy.
-
AI doesn't work¹, so it's easy to forget that larger point, I suspect? That *even if* AI did work (and again, it doesn't), it still would need to be critically examined from an ethical perspective.
Failing to do so is how we have massive surveillance networks today.
___
¹Here again, referring to the wave of current hype products. Boosters love wearing the ML shit that does work as a shield against criticism.@xgranade it's exhausting as fuck when people that both agree with and disagree with your main point (don't use or promote LLMs) object when the rationales you muster in support are not precisely the same ones they care about.
IMO this is where people get the idea that the "purity culture" angle presents a wedge issue they can use to attack anti-AI people. -
@xgranade it's exhausting as fuck when people that both agree with and disagree with your main point (don't use or promote LLMs) object when the rationales you muster in support are not precisely the same ones they care about.
IMO this is where people get the idea that the "purity culture" angle presents a wedge issue they can use to attack anti-AI people.@kevingranade I never want to put my AI Luddism on a pedestal and make it immune to critique... this is, for example, why I said my closed-mindedness on the subject is both temporary and a reasoned response to bad-faith DDoS attacks on discourse.
To that extent, I'm glad for critique from "my" side. But the purity culture discourse (with a few important exceptions) isn't that, it's a wedge.
-
@kevingranade I never want to put my AI Luddism on a pedestal and make it immune to critique... this is, for example, why I said my closed-mindedness on the subject is both temporary and a reasoned response to bad-faith DDoS attacks on discourse.
To that extent, I'm glad for critique from "my" side. But the purity culture discourse (with a few important exceptions) isn't that, it's a wedge.
@kevingranade I find that progressive moments, as a consequence of the laudable and correct willingness to self-criticize, tend to be vulnerable to wedge attacks. Fuck, as a trans person I *am* a wedge, or at least the right-wing has turned me into a wedge used to weaken opposition to violent and cruel immigration policies.
We need to get a lot better at distinguishing wedges from critiques.
-
Yesterday, had an argument with an AI booster. I'm not going to link, both because I don't want to platform that and because I don't want anyone to go harass them. But what I thought was very interesting was that I asked point-blank if there was any degree to which ethical problems with LLMs could make them not want to use AI — they told me no, there was not, and implied that they evaluated AI purely on the basis of its efficacy.
@xgranade had a very similar conversation the other day too; only was able to somewhat shift my interlocutor’s position after pointing out they don’t own this “tool”, and they are at the mercy of fash/oligarch class who can (and will) start extracting rent at any moment.
-
Yesterday, had an argument with an AI booster. I'm not going to link, both because I don't want to platform that and because I don't want anyone to go harass them. But what I thought was very interesting was that I asked point-blank if there was any degree to which ethical problems with LLMs could make them not want to use AI — they told me no, there was not, and implied that they evaluated AI purely on the basis of its efficacy.
@xgranade Its the government's job to regulate AI on an ethical basis, on behalf of all of us, because individually we don't have the power to do that, and the government represents the people in a democracy, and it does have the power. The fact that the government is not doing this at all shows to what extent we do not have a democracy. Not even close.
-
AI doesn't work¹, so it's easy to forget that larger point, I suspect? That *even if* AI did work (and again, it doesn't), it still would need to be critically examined from an ethical perspective.
Failing to do so is how we have massive surveillance networks today.
___
¹Here again, referring to the wave of current hype products. Boosters love wearing the ML shit that does work as a shield against criticism.@xgranade This has also been fascinating to me lately.
My latest blog post is specifically musing on what that calculus looks like for each person.
I always presumed that a major factor is in the belief that harms are not as bad as reported (which calls into question what sources we are viewing as authoritative) or that the current and/or future benefits to humanity are worth it (current harms are collateral damage in lieu of progress).
But for a person to be unable to imagine any scenario that would change their mind seems crazy to me.
I often ask myself what it would take to change my mind on this issue, and while I think most of those scenarios are highly improbable.. I can still imagine them.
-
@xgranade This has also been fascinating to me lately.
My latest blog post is specifically musing on what that calculus looks like for each person.
I always presumed that a major factor is in the belief that harms are not as bad as reported (which calls into question what sources we are viewing as authoritative) or that the current and/or future benefits to humanity are worth it (current harms are collateral damage in lieu of progress).
But for a person to be unable to imagine any scenario that would change their mind seems crazy to me.
I often ask myself what it would take to change my mind on this issue, and while I think most of those scenarios are highly improbable.. I can still imagine them.
@xgranade hmm, now that I think about it, maybe I should articulate that in a future blog post.
-
AI doesn't work¹, so it's easy to forget that larger point, I suspect? That *even if* AI did work (and again, it doesn't), it still would need to be critically examined from an ethical perspective.
Failing to do so is how we have massive surveillance networks today.
___
¹Here again, referring to the wave of current hype products. Boosters love wearing the ML shit that does work as a shield against criticism.@xgranade
In a meeting today, I recently raised the analogy to debates about torture. The debate gets muddy when people mix together questions of efficacy with questions of ethics and morality. Sometimes this confusion is deliberate but I suspect most of the time, it's just a lack of clarity on priorities. Whatever action we are considering, the first question should always be whether it's an ethical or moral action. The efficacy question should always be secondary. -
Yesterday, had an argument with an AI booster. I'm not going to link, both because I don't want to platform that and because I don't want anyone to go harass them. But what I thought was very interesting was that I asked point-blank if there was any degree to which ethical problems with LLMs could make them not want to use AI — they told me no, there was not, and implied that they evaluated AI purely on the basis of its efficacy.
@xgranade
Sociopaths gonna socio... path. -
I don't have time nor the inclination to argue that point with them further when it comes to AI. But I do think there's a broader point that is worth critical examination, especially as tech continues to build out surveillance, age verification, automated filtering and censoring, and other tools that do immense damage when used by authoritarians.
We *cannot* afford to evaluate tech purely based on whether it "works" or not.
@xgranade And especially given that it works reliably 'in this niche, but not this one'. Reliability and repeatability is all over the map.
-
Yesterday, had an argument with an AI booster. I'm not going to link, both because I don't want to platform that and because I don't want anyone to go harass them. But what I thought was very interesting was that I asked point-blank if there was any degree to which ethical problems with LLMs could make them not want to use AI — they told me no, there was not, and implied that they evaluated AI purely on the basis of its efficacy.
-
@xgranade Its the government's job to regulate AI on an ethical basis, on behalf of all of us, because individually we don't have the power to do that, and the government represents the people in a democracy, and it does have the power. The fact that the government is not doing this at all shows to what extent we do not have a democracy. Not even close.
@leastaction @xgranade it just shows that most people (represented by politicians) don’t care. They care much more about economic growth and their wealth then ethics. Also people in general are extremely lazy, which is why it is so tempting to use it and most are even willing to outsource their thinking to it.
-
@leastaction @xgranade it just shows that most people (represented by politicians) don’t care. They care much more about economic growth and their wealth then ethics. Also people in general are extremely lazy, which is why it is so tempting to use it and most are even willing to outsource their thinking to it.
@leastaction @xgranade by that I didn’t mean that politicians are not pushing their own agenda that can go against what their voters want. The only thing I claim is that the biggest flaw in any political system is ultimately people, so more democracy wouldn’t mean less push of AI.
-
Yesterday, had an argument with an AI booster. I'm not going to link, both because I don't want to platform that and because I don't want anyone to go harass them. But what I thought was very interesting was that I asked point-blank if there was any degree to which ethical problems with LLMs could make them not want to use AI — they told me no, there was not, and implied that they evaluated AI purely on the basis of its efficacy.
@xgranade yikes...there are a lot of things that are effective at efficiency accomplishing a goal that are certainly not ethical. I understand that it's easier to rationalize away ethical concerns when it's abstracted through several layers of stubbornness, doubt, etc., but I would have a very difficult time trusting or even conversing with someone who so utterly rejects ethics as a consideration. That recent satirical post someone made about the efficient orphan smashing machine comes to mind.
-
@xgranade had a very similar conversation the other day too; only was able to somewhat shift my interlocutor’s position after pointing out they don’t own this “tool”, and they are at the mercy of fash/oligarch class who can (and will) start extracting rent at any moment.
@wbftw @xgranade Yes! Even if we stick to one domain where “AI” works today (yes yes, FSVO), namely coding assistants, what is the future of non-commercial software if it just becomes normalised that being a programmer means paying rent of tens or hundreds of dollars a month in tokens? And that price rising once everyone is locked in, until the LLM operators can make a profit?
-
undefined oblomov@sociale.network shared this topic on
Gli ultimi otto messaggi ricevuti dalla Federazione
-
@VanityFairItaly @people-celebrities-VanityFairItaly morti sul lavoro tra i cantanti e orchestrali non se ne contano.... e luigi Tenco non conta!
-
ManuChao (@man--77.bsky.social)
https://bsky.app/profile/man--77.bsky.social/post/3mfmoghbhgk2k
> So true!
-
Piede Amaro (@piedea.bsky.social)
https://bsky.app/profile/piedea.bsky.social/post/3mfondrynas2y
> Come in qualsiasi umano consesso, anche fra i poliziotti ci sono differenti declinazioni: dai più fedeli e ligi al dovere fino ai veri e propri criminali, passando per tutte le sfumature di mezzo. Solo che quando tutti insieme manganellano chi c'è, c'è, non ti accorgi delle differenze.
-
“archivio del gatto nero”: viaggio nei 40 anni di radio onda d’urto. storie, voci, interviste, lotte.
@anarchia
“L’Archivio del Gatto Nero” è un viaggio negli archivi quarantennali di Radio Onda d’Urto, emittente radiofonica antagonista nata in una cantina di vicolo delle Sguizzette (Brescia) il 18 dicembre 1985. Ogni mercoledì, dalle ore 15.15
-
Achille Lauro a Sanremo 2026: «Sono felicemente single. Sul palco dell'Ariston bisogna essere coraggiosi, e il fallimento è parte del percorso di successo»
https://www.vanityfair.it/article/achille-lauro-sanremo-2026-single-palco-ariston-omaggio-crans-montana?utm_source=flipboard&utm_medium=activitypubPubblicato su People & celebrities @people-celebrities-VanityFairItaly
-
dopo glovo anche deliveroo indagata per caporalato
assurdamente qualunguemende
-
Ti filmano senza saperlo? Questa app scova gli occhiali smart nelle vicinanze
https://www.smartworld.it/news/app-rilevamento-occhiali-smart-meta-privacy.html
> Una nuova app individua gli occhiali smart vicini, come i Ray-Ban di Meta, segnalando possibili riprese non consapevoli e rischi per la privacy.
-
Joao Lucas Reis Da Silva primo tennista gay dichiarato ad entrare nel tabellone principale ATP
> João Lucas Reis Da Silva ha fatto qualcosa che nessun tennista dichiaratamente gay aveva mai fatto prima, ovvero giocare una partita del tabellone principale di un ATP 500.
