Yesterday, had an argument with an AI booster.
-
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 wow
-
@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?
-
J jwcph@helvede.net shared this topic
-
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.
-
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.The stuff which does work - is in its infancy, anyway.
-
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 A respectable* member of my entourage once told me, "I'd sell crack if I could without endangering my family." I think that's a testament on how fragile that whole ethics thing is.
Some people will stop only once AI kills someone important enough to them. -
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.How would you define "work" in this context? By this I mean what claims are being made by the hype.
-
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 The way that I personally interpret cases like this is a sort of "just world" belief. If it was truly bad, surely it would not be allowed? If there was a real problem, there would be some kind of higher power that stops it.
This also aligns with conversations where I point out that this stuff is heavily subsidized and the person says "well, it's free/cheap now", with no further elaboration. The implication is: "I will use it because I can. If it was bad to use, it would not have been usable."
If you believe that the status quo is good and just, then you don't need to consider anything outside of your immediate gratification. The consequences are someone else's problem. Once the rockets go up...
