Reading RecluseFeb 22

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.

Show threadPapageierFeb 22

@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.

Show threadBwatchFeb 22

@papageier
You are right that there has always been a protest to mechanising jobs. Black smiths when a nail cutting machine was invented for example.

There is a difference here since a notable portion of its function is at the academic level.

So let's say I need to write a book report, instead of reading the book I read an LLM summary, then write and publish my report.

Show threadBwatchFeb 22
Next person comes along and does the same thing, except now the LLM
is referencing my report based on an LLM summary. This repeats until all academic value has been drained from the source material. Are we at a net gain or loss of intelligence after this happens?
@reading_recluse @papageier
Show threadPapageier

@brokenshell @reading_recluse I honestly don't know. I had presumed LLM output to deteriorate over time, as AI output appears on the Web and is used to train NextGen AI. However, so far I stand corrected. Latest LLM versions are doing astonishingly well, and the limits are not yet in sight.

Yes, it is probably a hard experience for academics to suddenly face the same fate as simple workers (like weavers) 150 years ago. Because they always felt superior, and therefore safe? Maybe. This alone should teach us a lesson.

But the underlying truth is: if you can automate something in a disruptive manner, someone will always do it. All others have no choice: follow suit, find a niche or suffer economic death.

Feb 22 at 1:12pmWeb
Show threadBwatchFeb 22

@papageier
The problem with the weaver analogy is that imagine the weaving machine changed the sweater slightly each time. After enough time the sweater isn't going to fit a human making it useless.
That's closer to the reality of LLMs

I would love to see LLMs used to their full potential in manufacturing, but I have my doubts when they are being used to replace human comprehension.
Time will tell!
@reading_recluse

Show threadPapageierFeb 22

@brokenshell @reading_recluse I don't know what the quality of early mechanical looms was; I presume there was also some space for improvements.

However, the analogy was chosen with a grain of salt. Of course the situation is not one-and-the-same, but - it's close enough for arguments sake.