Piero Bosio Social Web Site Personale

@pluralistic@mamot.fr @skyfaller@jawns.club @FediThing@social.chinwag.org @tante@tldr.nettime.org That's a major oversimplification and minimization of the rampant feeding of every bit of human creation that can be gotten hold of, be it publicly posted or private, copyrighted or permissively offered, purchased or otherwise acquired. I'm not in the mood to argue the value of consent. And that's to say nothing of the abusive human labor used to filter, tag, and train regurgitated output. Theft is not the only harm that's been brought up, and not even the worst by far.

Finally, bringing that up nothing to address the argument that I'm tiring of reiterating. If you're comfortable wearing your dead mink coat, fine. They're dead already, and I'm not going to assume wearing is a statement that you're out to bludgeon more animals to make more (at least, unless the lady doth protest too much).

Just don't take umbrage at people complaining about the smell.

@pluralistic@mamot.fr @skyfaller@jawns.club @FediThing@social.chinwag.org @tante@tldr.nettime.org Again, this feels dismissive, and dodges the argument. The clarity I was referring to wasn't the use case you laid out (automated proofreading) or the platform (Ollama), but (as has been discussed at length through this thread of conversation) which models are being employed.

This entire conversation has been centered around how currently available models not evil due to vague notions of who incepted the technology they're based upon, but the active harm employed in their creation.

To return to the discussion I'm attempting to have here, I find your fruits of the poisoned tree argument weak, particularly when you're invoking William Shockley (who is most assuredly had no direct hand in the transistors installed in the hardware on my desk nor their component materials) as a counterpoint to the stolen work and egregious cost that are intrinsic to even the toy models out there. It reads to me as employing hyperbole and false equivalence defensively rather than focusing on why what you're comfortable using is, well, comfortable.

@pluralistic@mamot.fr @skyfaller@jawns.club @FediThing@social.chinwag.org @tante@tldr.nettime.org While I can understand your argument and almost certain exhaustion at hollow criticism, that response feels very dismissive of the points being made against your application of that argument.

I'm not sure how fruitful of an argument can be had with regard to what you may or not be using, as you really haven't clarified that anyhow besides locally hosted software that could be used to run terrible models, so this whole mess is just an endless back and forth of "You seem to be dodging the nature of the evil you may be accepting" vs "You're over-concerned with purity", and I think that's justifiably leaving a bad taste in everyone's mouth.

@skyfaller@jawns.club @pluralistic@mamot.fr @FediThing@social.chinwag.org @tante@tldr.nettime.org This is precisely it; it's about the process, not their distance from Altman, Amodei, et al. (which the Ollama project and those like it achieve).

The LLM models themselves are, per this analogy, still almost entirely of the mink-corpse variety, and I think it's a stretch to scream "purity!" at everyone giving you the stink eye for the coat you're wearing.

It's not impossible to have and use a model, locally hosted and energy-efficient, that wasn't directly birthed by mass theft and human abuse (or training directly off of models that were). And having models that aren't, that are genuinely open, is great! That's how the wickedness gets purged and the underlying tech gets liberated.

Maybe your coat is indeed synthetic, that much is still unclear, because so far all the arguing seems to be focused on the store you got it from and the monsters that operate the worst outlets.