@pluralistic sorry, i'm just not good at making a point. To me, not "LLM" is the "forbidden fruit", but "using an LLM for certain purposes" is. I think there are actually use-cases for stochastic inference machines (like folding proteins or structuring references), but, as @tante wrote (better: as I understand him), there are use-cases that one very much can reject in its entirety. And that should be okay.
undefined
Lupino
@lupinoarts@mstdn.social
Posts
-
Yesterday Cory Doctorow argued that refusal to use LLMs was mere "neoliberal purity culture". -
Yesterday Cory Doctorow argued that refusal to use LLMs was mere "neoliberal purity culture".@pluralistic and yes, i'm aware that producing a chip also costs vast amounts of energy and water... but at least my chip is used to solve a multitude of purposes, while a LLM that checks spelling and grammar is built and trained for one single use-case (that, nb, could also be done without an LLM). So yes, I do differenciate. @FediThing @tante
-
Yesterday Cory Doctorow argued that refusal to use LLMs was mere "neoliberal purity culture".@pluralistic i guess this misses the point: the particular chip in my laptop wasn't made by war criminals (i hope...), but the model you do use was trained under vast amounts of energy and water consumption. I'm not sure this is completely comparable, tbh.
-
Yesterday Cory Doctorow argued that refusal to use LLMs was mere "neoliberal purity culture".@pluralistic i'd start with the part that the model probably came pre-trained. Or was it trained by you on your laptop...? @FediThing @tante