The LLM discourse on the Fediverse has really irked me the last few days.
-
@tseitr @papageier @reading_recluse My problem with this framing is: who gets to decide?
Define 'essential'. Is a new generation of MacBooks 'essential'? Not really. The ones we have are amazing. But nobody's boycotting the progress being made in chip design.
But the anti-LLM crowd seem to have decided: not having LLMs is 'enough'. Having them is superfluous. They're not 'needed'.
I get the pushback. I'll never use one to write prose, because prose comes from my human heart.
But to deny their utility in the world of code generation is to be dogmatic. The vast, vast majority of code generation isn't art: it's the rote stitching together of existing pieces to make a new thing.
Claude is _much_ better at that than I am. If properly controlled by me the result is better and more secure.
So, I use Claude. Just like I use an IDE and a higher-level language and just like I deploy to an edge network run by someone else vs. standing up my own. Because doing that is better than not doing that.
@johnnydecimal @papageier @reading_recluse I come from Canada, so regarding clothing, it is fairly obvious that clothes are essential in order not to freeze to death, like air, water food etc. Indeed, the line gets more blurry for non-essential stuff. Even if I put other impacts aside (environment, job replacement) the simple fact it does not respect open source licenses is a hard stop for me, I ditched github for the same reasons when they introduced copilot.
-
@reading_recluse For me, it doesn't make sense to think about LLMs in pure dogmatic categories like "in favor" or "against". Fact is, LLMs are out there now and won't just disappear, and they CAN be powerful and useful tools if used in a reasonable way. The problem is that a lot of people are currently overusing it and don't reflect enough about when and how to use it, which leads to a lot of AI-generated crap. Maybe humanity just needs more time to finally find a good balance of AI usage.
@FredericJacob @reading_recluse
"The problem is that a lot of people are currently overusing it and don't reflect enough about when and how to use it..."
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Meanwhile:
️
https://www.technologyreview.com/2025/05/20/1116327/ai-energy-usage-climate-footprint-big-tech/?gad_source=1&gad_campaignid=20737314952&gbraid=0AAAAADgO_miNIDzn-BdCIXzZ6r87g94-L&gclid=Cj0KCQiA49XMBhDRARIsAOOKJHbvIzPACe0EdEyWK86TnS7rNlnUaePKc5y22qT0ZsfqUeGDe72zzc0aAhFFEALw_wcB
#doomed #ClimateChange -
@reading_recluse You do wear machine-woven cloth, though, no?
Seriously: Why?
It's exploitative, the quality is mediocre, it kills jobs, it's a waste of resources, consumes vast amounts of energy, hinders creativity, destroys small businesses, forces uniformity onto people ... why wear it?
Because not doing so would be a waste of time. And time is the one resource that's (still) strictly limited for all of us. We compromise on the quality of clothing (debatable), in order to do other things we couldn't if we were still weaving cloth manually.
When mechanical weaving machines came about, the workers threw their wooden shoes, in French 'Sabot', into the machines to stop them.
All that is left of this effort is a word describing the futile attempt: Sabotage.
So protest all you like, it's just not going to get you anywhere.
@papageier @reading_recluse I've done some weaving with a manual loom, and I think your attempt to draw a parallel between machine weaving and LLMs is absurd, wrong in most of the specifics and missing the point of much LLM criticism.
-
@lproven @xs4me2 @dynamite_ready @reading_recluse I wasn't replying to you Liam! In fact, I largely agree with the viewpoint youve expressed
@ben @xs4me2 @dynamite_ready @reading_recluse Aha! Sorry, in that case...
-
@tseitr @papageier @reading_recluse My problem with this framing is: who gets to decide?
Define 'essential'. Is a new generation of MacBooks 'essential'? Not really. The ones we have are amazing. But nobody's boycotting the progress being made in chip design.
But the anti-LLM crowd seem to have decided: not having LLMs is 'enough'. Having them is superfluous. They're not 'needed'.
I get the pushback. I'll never use one to write prose, because prose comes from my human heart.
But to deny their utility in the world of code generation is to be dogmatic. The vast, vast majority of code generation isn't art: it's the rote stitching together of existing pieces to make a new thing.
Claude is _much_ better at that than I am. If properly controlled by me the result is better and more secure.
So, I use Claude. Just like I use an IDE and a higher-level language and just like I deploy to an edge network run by someone else vs. standing up my own. Because doing that is better than not doing that.
@johnnydecimal @tseitr @papageier @reading_recluse useful to whom? I write both prose and code and I would argue that they both a. come from my brain (powered by my heart, controlling my fingers) b. are about stitching existing pieces together to make new things. I find that stitching meaningful and rewarding, and through practice I'm becoming reasonably good at it. Not doing that would be worse than doing that (see how I'm restitching your words together?). That's why LLMs are useless to me.
-
@reading_recluse I spend a lot of my time these days trying not to send middle finger emojis to people to be honest... Probably isn't very socially acceptable, but it's how I feel.
@mollymay5000 @reading_recluse
putting middle-finger emojis in my texts because almost all other emojis indicate that it was written by an LLM(JFC I fucking hate those texts or even technical documentation full of
and IDK what other shit) -
@thesofafox @reading_recluse of course this is a good idea, but a part of me thinks: why bother to regulate something the industry is ovviously going to move on from because it’s deeply unprofitable?
-
The LLM discourse on the Fediverse has really irked me the last few days.
Refusing to read writing made with the use of LLMs and refusing to give time to writers who use, promote or justify the use of LLMs is not purity culture, it's a boycott. It's a political act of withdrawing my time, resources and support for something that I find deeply morally wrong. It's protest. I have a choice and I refuse.
LLMs are exploitative, destructive, biased, mediocre parroting machines. Using them has a negative impact on the climate, the arts, the quality of the internet, the job market, the economy, the accessibility of electronics, even on skill development, creativity and mental health. LLMs are made and trained on the unpaid labour of millions -if not billions- of people who didn't consent. Their generic output litter the path to finding anything by true human creators.
Wherever I can, for as long as I can, I reject LLMs and anything that is related to them. I'm boycotting.
@reading_recluse Yep. I stopped following someone here in the Fediverse who has a bajillion followers because they were unabashedly using AI to help write their long posts. It doesn't matter how useful you personally find it, it does harm.
-
The LLM discourse on the Fediverse has really irked me the last few days.
Refusing to read writing made with the use of LLMs and refusing to give time to writers who use, promote or justify the use of LLMs is not purity culture, it's a boycott. It's a political act of withdrawing my time, resources and support for something that I find deeply morally wrong. It's protest. I have a choice and I refuse.
LLMs are exploitative, destructive, biased, mediocre parroting machines. Using them has a negative impact on the climate, the arts, the quality of the internet, the job market, the economy, the accessibility of electronics, even on skill development, creativity and mental health. LLMs are made and trained on the unpaid labour of millions -if not billions- of people who didn't consent. Their generic output litter the path to finding anything by true human creators.
Wherever I can, for as long as I can, I reject LLMs and anything that is related to them. I'm boycotting.
@reading_recluse But you have to be able to identify such output.
I can even imagine a scenario where it becomes so pervasive, it’s a requirement to utilize to remain functional within the system. -
The LLM discourse on the Fediverse has really irked me the last few days.
Refusing to read writing made with the use of LLMs and refusing to give time to writers who use, promote or justify the use of LLMs is not purity culture, it's a boycott. It's a political act of withdrawing my time, resources and support for something that I find deeply morally wrong. It's protest. I have a choice and I refuse.
LLMs are exploitative, destructive, biased, mediocre parroting machines. Using them has a negative impact on the climate, the arts, the quality of the internet, the job market, the economy, the accessibility of electronics, even on skill development, creativity and mental health. LLMs are made and trained on the unpaid labour of millions -if not billions- of people who didn't consent. Their generic output litter the path to finding anything by true human creators.
Wherever I can, for as long as I can, I reject LLMs and anything that is related to them. I'm boycotting.
@reading_recluse I like to remember when we realized that all the nice imported surveillance cameras were suddenly phoning home and that it would be really expensive to remove them again from all our infrastructure, which is when the wonderful term "digital asbestos" was brought up in 2022:
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-63749696
With AI, I mean "artifice infliction", it's much the same. It's the new wonder material that gets put into everything and then we'll have to "live with it".
-
@reading_recluse @mollymay5000 what if this reply were written by an AI assistant? #claw
@zzeligg @reading_recluse @mollymay5000 Exactly, how would you know?
-
@fosstastic @reading_recluse Careful with this: LLMs are well-known for always agreeing with the user and taking the user's side. They are not impartial. The architects behind LLMs want you to keep using them, and you're less likely to use them if they're completely honest with you.
I'm not saying you were at fault or anything (I know nothing about your situation); just reminding you to exercise caution. People have taken their lives after using LLMs for therapy.
-
@thesofafox @reading_recluse Maybe. The tech industry hasn’t seemed to care very much about satisfying consumer demand ever before. I think AI is about pumping tech stocks to stave off another bubble bursting.
I don’t think this tech requires any resistance, personally, because it’s already failing. There’s no “advancing through it,” our computer systems were more advanced (worked better, faster, and more securely) ten years ago when fewer people were using this stuff.
-
@thesofafox @reading_recluse Maybe. The tech industry hasn’t seemed to care very much about satisfying consumer demand ever before. I think AI is about pumping tech stocks to stave off another bubble bursting.
I don’t think this tech requires any resistance, personally, because it’s already failing. There’s no “advancing through it,” our computer systems were more advanced (worked better, faster, and more securely) ten years ago when fewer people were using this stuff.
@thesofafox @reading_recluse I also think it’s difficult to say if there even is much real consumer demand for AI, considering how much it’s been forced into everything. There might be, but how would we know?
-
@xs4me2 @lproven @dynamite_ready @reading_recluse
What you're essentially suggesting here, is that LLMs are only good for consuming information if the user either already has the knowledge to judge output (in which case, why are they asking?) or spends time to verify the claims that the LLM makes (in which case, why bother asking the LLM?).
I've seen them make some pretty important mistakes, including suggesting that a Director who wasn't on the call being summarised had authorised something
@ben @xs4me2 @lproven @reading_recluse
Exactly that.
Much like what already happens with Google, or indeed, at the library, but in a far more dynamic way.
You don't need to look too far for examples of people settling on the first Google link, or cherry picking news articles either.
I personally believe the main issues are the economic and environmental impact, intellectual property infringement, privacy, and the potential to erode critical thought.
These are huge though, obviously.
-
The LLM discourse on the Fediverse has really irked me the last few days.
Refusing to read writing made with the use of LLMs and refusing to give time to writers who use, promote or justify the use of LLMs is not purity culture, it's a boycott. It's a political act of withdrawing my time, resources and support for something that I find deeply morally wrong. It's protest. I have a choice and I refuse.
LLMs are exploitative, destructive, biased, mediocre parroting machines. Using them has a negative impact on the climate, the arts, the quality of the internet, the job market, the economy, the accessibility of electronics, even on skill development, creativity and mental health. LLMs are made and trained on the unpaid labour of millions -if not billions- of people who didn't consent. Their generic output litter the path to finding anything by true human creators.
Wherever I can, for as long as I can, I reject LLMs and anything that is related to them. I'm boycotting.
-
The LLM discourse on the Fediverse has really irked me the last few days.
Refusing to read writing made with the use of LLMs and refusing to give time to writers who use, promote or justify the use of LLMs is not purity culture, it's a boycott. It's a political act of withdrawing my time, resources and support for something that I find deeply morally wrong. It's protest. I have a choice and I refuse.
LLMs are exploitative, destructive, biased, mediocre parroting machines. Using them has a negative impact on the climate, the arts, the quality of the internet, the job market, the economy, the accessibility of electronics, even on skill development, creativity and mental health. LLMs are made and trained on the unpaid labour of millions -if not billions- of people who didn't consent. Their generic output litter the path to finding anything by true human creators.
Wherever I can, for as long as I can, I reject LLMs and anything that is related to them. I'm boycotting.
@reading_recluse There are fundamental differences between
1. "the person who had the idea was bad, so I will not touch things they tainted with their badness" (purity argument)
2. "the tool was created using bad (or catastrophic) means, so the ends don't matter" (purity)
3. "the tool creates bad ends every time it is used, so the means don't matter" (function)
4. "the tool creates bad ends when used inappropriately" (define "appropriate")
5. "the tool is sometimes helpful under limited circumstances". (define "limited")
and they can all be true.
Right now I'm somewhere between 2 and 3 - the means are bad but it may be possible to avoid adding to them,
and the bad ends are hard to quantify.But as someone whose ability to code is almost completely gone due to long covid, but who sees a need for unprofitable software tools that no-one else will build, I may eventually end up in 5, supervising an LLM out of desperation.
For now I'm continuing to try to avoid LLM-generated content.
-
@papageier @reading_recluse machine-woven cloth was answering an essential need in a profitable capitalistic way. Can we say the same about LLM?
I think it is not inevitable, but time will tell.
@tseitr @papageier @reading_recluse Tech advancement is not only desirable, it’s part of human evolution. It should be a good thing, even AI, freeing up humans from basic grunt work.
But not in a profit driven capitalist system that relies on disenfranchising fellow citizens to make profits. And the haphazard manner of competitive development putting excess strain on energy and resources. $$$ is the lure, it seems to undermine us at every turn. -
@reading_recluse i generally agree with you but did you consider nobody normal will take you seriously if you refer to people as "true human creators"?
@grepe @reading_recluse why do you think this
-
@reading_recluse For me, it doesn't make sense to think about LLMs in pure dogmatic categories like "in favor" or "against". Fact is, LLMs are out there now and won't just disappear, and they CAN be powerful and useful tools if used in a reasonable way. The problem is that a lot of people are currently overusing it and don't reflect enough about when and how to use it, which leads to a lot of AI-generated crap. Maybe humanity just needs more time to finally find a good balance of AI usage.
People who use AI for writing have a non-zero risk exposure to lawsuits based on existing law and coming laws developed in response to AI.
I am seeing more companies' material clearly written using AI. Why? Because users have either no idea there's risk, or believe no one will know they've lazily or foolishly passed off some other company's artificial sentence machinery as their own words. I recently received a letter with an EEOC prohibited phrase in it - I flagged the sender who admitted using AI.
There will be a new growth area in legal practice -- suing for use of AI and the rising "It wasn't me, it was ChatGPt (that plagarizes, hallucinates, discriminates, writes dreck), sue them instead" defense.
Careers will be obliterated, rightly so. Stop using AI for writing or openly credit AI as author, co-author, or editor.
