Piero Bosio Social Web Site Personale

@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"...

@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 @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 @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 @miguelgrinberg Language matters maybe more than you think. Saying "I'm pro AI" means you've (perhaps unintendedly) approved of the broader implications in the way AI is marketed by the tech companies themselves.

I suspect your question is more about LLM/agentic workflows in an engineering scenario than AI usage in government, police, military decision-making (as an example).

If you're saying "it doesn't matter" to how we use the language, then you'll likely find a lot of resistance from folks who believe that language matters. But that's a different discussion altogether.