Is this platform still massively against AI or has it moved more towards acceptance?

[mitsuhiko@hachyderm.io]

@ddelemeny It feels like y'all just want to unload your frustrations into this conversation. I have no desire to engage on that front.

[pythonbynight@hachyderm.io]

@mitsuhiko @ddelemeny It seems a little unfair to ask a question like "is this platform still massively against AI" and then pushback against attempts at clarifying what you mean by that statement.

In your opinion, language doesn't matter, but to others, language clearly does... that's not to say you are wrong, or they are wrong--but it's a matter of importance to agree upon what it is that we are "massively against" in the first place.

If you were to lead with something ilke--"I am massively against the AI industry as a whole and the violations enumerated elsewhere, as well as the problematic usages of "AI" in spaces such as surveillance, military, police, big tech, etc..--but I do see ways in which we can harness a subset of that technology in a positive way in our engineering workflows... well, that might lead to a better discussion.

For example, I would be very curious to hear what your workflow would look like if (when?) the unsustainable valuations finally deflate. I read most of your blog posts and find them very interesting...

But the initial question read more like a provocation than a request for discussion in general.

[mitsuhiko@hachyderm.io]

@pythonbynight @ddelemeny the purpose of the post was to figure out if I should post AI content here. From the responses I can see that it would be unwise.

[pythonbynight@hachyderm.io]

@mitsuhiko @ddelemeny I have several friends and other accounts I follow that post very interesting content about their agentic workflows, the things they're building with the latest tooling, or their views on the latest frontier models.

Their enthusiasm and interest does not come at the expense of minimizing the threats that others feel from the very same industry.

1/3

[mitsuhiko@hachyderm.io]

@pythonbynight @ddelemeny None of this was the topic of discussion though? It was about language policing my use of the term AI. As for the other stuff: I take issue with your insinuation that I would not want to engage or care about concerns with it. I do, but I can also separate out these things into distinct conversations. I find that still very hard to do here and Bluesky because of the overwhelming negativity. This thread being an excellent example of it.

[ddelemeny@mastodon.xyz]

@mitsuhiko @pythonbynight seen from the other side, you set the conversation in terms that are way too broad for what you actually want to talk about and frankly read as a taunt on a hot topic, then complain that the conversation doesn't flow the way you assumed everyone would agree on (and I fail to imagine what you expected with such a starter).
"Massively against AI" is a mischaracterization of a variety of more nuanced and precise positions, which are only tangentially related to AI.

[pythonbynight@hachyderm.io]

@ddelemeny @mitsuhiko I appreciate that you say you take issue with some of these concerns, I apologize for the insinuation otherwise. Up until now, you either felt the concern was overblown, not important, or irrelevant so as not to make your position more clear.

Is it accurate to say that you believe it is irrelevant for people genuinely concerned about the AI industry to bring up their issues in a question that asks if people here are "massively against AI"?

In the end, it seems to me (correct me if I'm wrong) that you take issue with individuals asking for more precise language, or further, explaining why they might be "massively against AI", because you see that as a matter of language policing?

As for my part, I come from a humanities background, where language matters a lot, and asking for clarity is key to more effective communication. I do apologize for mischaracterizing your intentions.

[mitsuhiko@hachyderm.io]

@pythonbynight @ddelemeny There are specific concerns and there are abstract fears. It's impossible to work with the latter, it's possible to do a lot with the former. As an example I have a lot of concern about how society is going to deal with AI and that's also something that I'm trying to understand and work in the right way with. But that is a lot more nuance and complex than a policing the use of the word AI which does very little to navigate those complexities.

[pythonbynight@hachyderm.io]

@mitsuhiko @ddelemeny I happen to think that "language policing" (as crude a term as that is) is one of the ways we can start addressing some of these complexities.

The problems (real or perceived) with using AI in an engineering workflow can be addressed separately (and in good faith) when we're able to think about it properly, as opposed to, say the problems of AI usage in the general public (chatbot use by young children or people at risk and the psychological effects), as an example.

Perhaps your initial question, from your perspective, was specifically geared toward the former (engineering workflows), but in that case, I don't think it's fair to assume everyone knew what you meant. It's like saying, "it's your fault for misunderstanding my question"...

[miguelgrinberg@mstdn.social]

@mitsuhiko @pythonbynight @ddelemeny Armin, with respect, I insist that for a lot of people language clarity matters. The term "AI" does not mean anything anymore. It is a term that was appropriated by techbros and used extensively to hype the bad aspects of generative AI (we can leave the discussion of what the good aspects are, if any, for another day).

If you were to ask if you should post LLM content I'd just answer "I'm not interested, but it's a free world, so do what you want".