Yesterday Cory Doctorow argued that refusal to use LLMs was mere "neoliberal purity culture".
-
Of course, I am speaking in generalities.
Encouraging the use of LLM's is counterproductive in so many ways, as I highlighted.
Pop a power meter on that LLM adorned PC and let us all know what the power usage looks like with and without your chosen LLM running on a typical task
That's power that generated somewhere, even if it's with renewable energy.
The main issue with LLM's is that they don't encourage critical thinking, in a world which is already suffering from a massive shortage.
As I wrote (and it seems you haven't read what I wrote, which is weird, because that seems like a good first step if you're going to criticize my conduct), I'm running Ollama on a laptop that doesn't even have a GPU.
Its power consumption is comparable to, say, watching a Youtube video.
I know this because my laptop is running free software that lets me accurately monitor its activity, and because the model is also free software.
-
As I wrote (and it seems you haven't read what I wrote, which is weird, because that seems like a good first step if you're going to criticize my conduct), I'm running Ollama on a laptop that doesn't even have a GPU.
Its power consumption is comparable to, say, watching a Youtube video.
I know this because my laptop is running free software that lets me accurately monitor its activity, and because the model is also free software.
Checking for punctuation errors is does not discourage critical thinking. It's weird to laud "critical thinking" and also make this claim.
-
@simonzerafa @tante @pluralistic
At best 40% junk, but unless you are so expert you don't need it, you can't know which is plausible rubbish.
Would you play Russian Roulette every day for hours?Beats me.
I thought Cory was supposed to be clever or something? I've blocked him for now. Not interested in banging my head against that particular lack of critical thinking.
Perhaps when the AI bubble bursts, he will become more rational.
-
@tante I still haven't completely unpacked these arguments. To dwell on the gramnar checker thing, I assume that pre-LLM checkers were to some extent developed by building statistical models from a large corpus of existing text. That's not quite the same thing as the mass plagiarism used to build generative AI models. For myself I've never used such tools, I consider them an annoyance: If there's a mistake in my writing, the human reader will make a better job of correcting it from context.
@kbm0 @tante
It would have to be curated text. The MS one with Word 2003 is worse than a current LO Writer plug in.I can see no value in checking documents with an LLM.
A dictionary can be edited.
An open source grammar checking plug-in can have rules adjusted.
You can also add a regex.
Every replacement needs manually reviewed.The LLMs are opaque, can't be edited and based on content that's neither curated nor legally obtained. The economics don't work and it's environmentally damaging.
-
@tante@tldr.nettime.org That's not the only thing where the actions and words of Doctorow do not match.
-
@FediThing @tante @pluralistic I’ve been utterly baffled why he’s so popular for decades.
-
@FediThing @tante @pluralistic I’ve been utterly baffled why he’s so popular for decades.
@Colman @FediThing @tante That's interesting. I've never wondered that about you.
-
Yesterday Cory Doctorow argued that refusal to use LLMs was mere "neoliberal purity culture". I think his argument is a strawman, doesn't align with his own actions and delegitimizes important political actions we need to make in order to build a better cyberphysical world.
https://tante.cc/2026/02/20/acting-ethical-in-an-imperfect-world/
Good critique. And I say this, as well as like your arguments, while also believing there are certain domains where LLMs do have reasonable utility value - nowhere near the value required to make OpenAI, Antrophic or the rest profitable, but some value nonetheless.
@tante -
@FediThing @tante @pluralistic I’ve been utterly baffled why he’s so popular for decades.
@Colman @FediThing @pluralistic this is just a dumb attack on Cory as a person which I will not accept. You can talk about what he or I wrote (both things can be criticized) but have some respect
-
Beats me.
I thought Cory was supposed to be clever or something? I've blocked him for now. Not interested in banging my head against that particular lack of critical thinking.
Perhaps when the AI bubble bursts, he will become more rational.
@simonzerafa @raymaccarthy this is just a dumb attack on Cory as a person which I will not accept. You can talk about what he or I wrote (both things can be criticized) but have some respect
-
@simonzerafa @raymaccarthy this is just a dumb attack on Cory as a person which I will not accept. You can talk about what he or I wrote (both things can be criticized) but have some respect
@tante @simonzerafa
A brilliant person isn't right about everything.
It's only a criticism of one view/idea. -
Checking for punctuation errors is does not discourage critical thinking. It's weird to laud "critical thinking" and also make this claim.
@pluralistic @simonzerafa on this one for example I fully agree with Cory. This is not him having a genAI system write or anything like that.
-
Good critique. And I say this, as well as like your arguments, while also believing there are certain domains where LLMs do have reasonable utility value - nowhere near the value required to make OpenAI, Antrophic or the rest profitable, but some value nonetheless.
@tante@osma@mas.to @tante@tldr.nettime.org It has debatable utility in some uses, but nowhere near enough to make the industry worth keeping around given the ethical concerns. The utility is effectively immaterial compared to the self-parody levels of evil on display from OpenAI and its ilk.
-
@raymaccarthy @simonzerafa @tante
Again, what does checking the punctuation on a single essay per day have to do with "play[ing] Russian Roulette every day for hours?"
@pluralistic I'd be disappointed if I didn't see myself in the pattern of engaging with people on a post like this who are worlds away from having a fair discussion...
They literally can't see the reality of AI beyond their arguments, they've decided it's inherently evil and wrong and locked in their viewpoint.
So their "russian roulette every day for hours" is because, despite you saying what you use it for, they can't comprehend how it can be used outside of the worst possible use cases.
Same reason they're accusing you of being a libertarian, but that's already the purity culture you were originally calling out.
-
@osma@mas.to @tante@tldr.nettime.org It has debatable utility in some uses, but nowhere near enough to make the industry worth keeping around given the ethical concerns. The utility is effectively immaterial compared to the self-parody levels of evil on display from OpenAI and its ilk.
Whatever I just wrote, thanks. Don't see why we should debate it.
@flesh -
> I am not clear on how this connects to discussing origins of technologies
Because the arguments against running an LLM on your own computer boil down to, "The LLM was made by bad people, or in bad ways."
This is a purity culture standard, a "fruit of the poisoned tree" argument, and while it is often dressed up in objectivity ("I don't use the fruit of the poisoned tree"), it is just special pleading ("the fruits of the poisoned tree that I use don't count, because __").
-
> I am not clear on how this connects to discussing origins of technologies
Because the arguments against running an LLM on your own computer boil down to, "The LLM was made by bad people, or in bad ways."
This is a purity culture standard, a "fruit of the poisoned tree" argument, and while it is often dressed up in objectivity ("I don't use the fruit of the poisoned tree"), it is just special pleading ("the fruits of the poisoned tree that I use don't count, because __").
> Almost everyone using LLMs will use the online kind, so objections to LLMs are (reasonably IMHO) based on that scenario.
Except that in this specific instance, you are weighing on an article that claims that it is wrong to run a local LLM for the purposes of checking for punctuation errors.
-
@pluralistic @simonzerafa on this one for example I fully agree with Cory. This is not him having a genAI system write or anything like that.
@tante @pluralistic @simonzerafa I agree in principle with Cory, but I really wish that he had clarified that:
1. Ollama is not an LLM, it's a server for various models, of varying degrees of openness.
2. Open weights is not open source, the model is still a black box. We should support projects like OLMO, which are completely open, down to the training data set and checkpoints.
3. It's quite difficult to "seize that technology" without using Someone Else's Computer to do so (a.k.a clown/cloud) -
There is no virtue in being constrained or regulated per se.
Regulation isn't a good unto itself.
Regulation that is itself good - drawn up for a good purpose, designed to be administrable, and then competently administered - is good.
-
Yesterday Cory Doctorow argued that refusal to use LLMs was mere "neoliberal purity culture". I think his argument is a strawman, doesn't align with his own actions and delegitimizes important political actions we need to make in order to build a better cyberphysical world.
https://tante.cc/2026/02/20/acting-ethical-in-an-imperfect-world/
@tante It seems to me Doctorow is obviously correct about this. But I don't think it matters too much if you don't agree... the trajectory of LLMs is going to be whatever it is going to be.
If you don't like it and have buddies that don't like it either, that's not a bad thing especially if you are undergoing real negative effects from it.
It's just if you stray from reality (whatever that will be) too far for too long, you will end up with a big shock when forced to rejoin it.
