New article: this time, we use Heidegger to explain why the "it's just a tool" line that often comes up in tech is so very silly:

[bignose@fosstodon.org]

@voltagex has left me no option, I have to repeat one of my favourites:

“What part of “gestalt” don't you understand?”

i'll see myself out, thanks

@iris_meredith

[bignose@fosstodon.org]

Thank you @iris_meredith, this is very timely given this week's terrible resolution by the #Debian project (to explicitly take no stand against any of the harms of #LLM “just a tool”).

I fervently wish that this was understood by more of the people voting in that resolution. The fight continues, I hope.

[bignose@fosstodon.org]

in case someone doesn't know what I'm referring to: this resolution https://www.debian.org/vote/2026/vote_002 was decided this week.

@iris_meredith

[andres4ny@social.ridetrans.it]

@iris_meredith This is the kind of thing I bookmark for later reference.

[diazona@techhub.social]

@iris_meredith Interesting, although I don't think I agree with the premise of what "just a tool" means. (Or at least that's not the way I would use the phrase.) Still, there are some insightful points in there.

[paco@infosec.exchange]

@mrsbeanbag I think the blog and the reasoning in it is really good. I’m going to use it in the future. But I also agree with you that LLMs really strain the definition of “tool”.

The same person giving the same LLM the same exact input more than once to solve the same problem more than once will get 2 different outputs (probably similar, but not at all identical). That makes it a strange “tool,” indeed.

And there’s so much cargo culting around just the right phrases to prevent this problem or that problem. People can develop expertise with a tool. But LLMs’ non-determinism limit the value of past experience with respect to future performance.

@iris_meredith

[elexia@catcatnya.com]

@iris_meredith this isn't really gonna make us feel different about LLMs (which we don't and don't intend to use) but it is making us more seriously consider the implications of having a gun (which we currently do not but have wanted to, it just wasn't enough of a priority and financially unviable). while it's certainly not a new idea that carrying one does influence the wielder, we should consider that simply being aware of it doesn't make us immune to such influence. not that we would be allowed to carry a gun here anyway.

[iris_meredith@mastodon.social]

@elexia
Honestly, the biggest worry I have with guns is the propensity we have to use them on ourselves. I know quite a few gun owners (who universally are very careful with that influence), and that's consistently my biggest fear.

[elexia@catcatnya.com]

@iris_meredith yeah that's true.

[bortzmeyer@mastodon.gougere.fr]

@iris_meredith I remember when I discovered (indeed, at a sichuanese restaurant) that you are not supposed to eat all the chili

[morten_skaaning@mastodon.gamedev.place]

@iris_meredith a pet peeve of mine is forbidding the word "just" (as in easy) in professional settings, because it's hiding real decisions people have to make. It's sloppy, in the Leslie Lamport "thoughts are sloppy, writing is sharp" way.

[salixsericea@mastodon.social]

@iris_meredith Bookmarked & boosted. It also made me realize I can describe Heidegger to developers in dev terms. Like so: You see, Heidegger is kind of the React of 20th century philosophers, .
Cheers, happy Sunday.

[confuseacat@mastodon.social]

@iris_meredith thank you! That was a terrific read.
But I just have to mention Frank Elavsky's rant here: https://www.frank.computer/blog/2025/05/just-a-tool.html