Cassandra is only carbon nowFeb 22
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.
Show threadCassandra is only carbon now

I don't have time nor the inclination to argue that point with them further when it comes to AI. But I do think there's a broader point that is worth critical examination, especially as tech continues to build out surveillance, age verification, automated filtering and censoring, and other tools that do immense damage when used by authoritarians.

We *cannot* afford to evaluate tech purely based on whether it "works" or not.

Feb 22 at 10:42pmWeb
Show threadCassandra is only carbon nowFeb 22

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.

Show threadyoshFeb 22

@xgranade

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.

Show threadKevin GranadeFeb 22
@xgranade it's exhausting as fuck when people that both agree with and disagree with your main point (don't use or promote LLMs) object when the rationales you muster in support are not precisely the same ones they care about.
IMO this is where people get the idea that the "purity culture" angle presents a wedge issue they can use to attack anti-AI people.
Show threadCassandra is only carbon nowFeb 22

@kevingranade I never want to put my AI Luddism on a pedestal and make it immune to critique... this is, for example, why I said my closed-mindedness on the subject is both temporary and a reasoned response to bad-faith DDoS attacks on discourse.

To that extent, I'm glad for critique from "my" side. But the purity culture discourse (with a few important exceptions) isn't that, it's a wedge.

Show threadCassandra is only carbon nowFeb 22

@kevingranade I find that progressive moments, as a consequence of the laudable and correct willingness to self-criticize, tend to be vulnerable to wedge attacks. Fuck, as a trans person I *am* a wedge, or at least the right-wing has turned me into a wedge used to weaken opposition to violent and cruel immigration policies.

We need to get a lot better at distinguishing wedges from critiques.

Show threadMario MunozFeb 23

@xgranade This has also been fascinating to me lately.

My latest blog post is specifically musing on what that calculus looks like for each person.

I always presumed that a major factor is in the belief that harms are not as bad as reported (which calls into question what sources we are viewing as authoritative) or that the current and/or future benefits to humanity are worth it (current harms are collateral damage in lieu of progress).

But for a person to be unable to imagine any scenario that would change their mind seems crazy to me.

I often ask myself what it would take to change my mind on this issue, and while I think most of those scenarios are highly improbable.. I can still imagine them.

Show threadMario MunozFeb 23
@xgranade hmm, now that I think about it, maybe I should articulate that in a future blog post.
Show threadnewberyFeb 23
@xgranade
In a meeting today, I recently raised the analogy to debates about torture. The debate gets muddy when people mix together questions of efficacy with questions of ethics and morality. Sometimes this confusion is deliberate but I suspect most of the time, it's just a lack of clarity on priorities. Whatever action we are considering, the first question should always be whether it's an ethical or moral action. The efficacy question should always be secondary.
Show threadtuban_muzuruFeb 23

@xgranade

The stuff which does work - is in its infancy, anyway.

Show threadtuban_muzuruFeb 23

@xgranade

How would you define "work" in this context? By this I mean what claims are being made by the hype.

Show thread💀 𝓕airchild 💀Feb 23
@xgranade And especially given that it works reliably 'in this niche, but not this one'. Reliability and repeatability is all over the map.