we're tired of hearing "it's just a tool" because, well, a) we disagree and

b) let's pretend that we agree. okay, it's a tool: who made it? why did they make it? what is this tool good at doing? is it any better at doing it than the previous methods by which we would do this thing? why should i use it for that? can you demonstrate the tool's utility in a situation i propose? are the tradeoffs worth the benefits? can you answer *any* of these questions?

but no, people just say "it's just a tool" and it's inevitable and we just have to get used to it, no questioning allowed, no objections allowed (see also: the cries of discrimination coming from adafruit) , and the conversation stops there. weird, huh.

it is not a tool, it is a an informational dirty bomb, it is a mechanism by which the worst people on the planet are enriching themselves at the expense of your ability to find information. it has no liberatory uses — it must be resisted by force.
@atax1a well put
@ireneista @atax1a So far we have seen no justification of the use of LLMs or "generative AI" that aren't either vague and unconvincing, or clearly about mere speed or bulk volume. Not to get all Catholic here but...is it really a good idea for the tech sector to be encouraging our sins? The sin of impatience, in this case.
@mxchara @atax1a oh hey right they are literally attempting to immanentize the eschaton
@mxchara @atax1a we should really leave spiritual analysis to people who have the background for it, but...
@mxchara @ireneista someone likened it to fast fashion, but downplayed the environmental impacts, and we're like, we aren't arguing from an environmental standpoint, we're arguing that, like fast fashion, the thing the LLM is good at is perhaps a thing that we should not have in the first place?
@atax1a @ireneista that's certainly how I feel! the LLM boosters are bragging about being able to do more of the shit that's already been ruining software--just cranking the stuff out almost without caring whether it works or not
@mxchara @ireneista @atax1a y'know, I'm realizing all the very strong anti-ai people I know are (at least a bit) Catholic.
@pencilears @mxchara @ireneista @atax1a y'know who else whispers in your ear "look, if you just stop worrying and do everything I tell you to, your life would be sooo much easier"? That's right: The Devil. From The Bible.
@pencilears @mxchara @ireneista @atax1a "brooo just turn that rock into bread, it'll be so tasty, since when has a little snack hurt anyone?" nice try, mr altman, but I am out here in the desert for a long time, not for a good one.
@pencilears @mxchara @atax1a right, like personally our beliefs are strongly against this stuff but our belief system doesn't tell us to go get in everyone's faces and be angry at strangers about it, you know?
@pencilears @mxchara @atax1a at least, not unless we think doing so will bring about positive change
@ireneista @mxchara @atax1a it is reasonable to be tactical about when to deploy an opinion to best effect
@pencilears @mxchara @atax1a that's certainly our view
@ireneista @pencilears @mxchara well, fuck, now we're thinking about saying "I have religious objections to AI usage, on account of being catholic"
@atax1a @ireneista @mxchara right, like it has to be a stronger argument than merely being sinful.
@pencilears @ireneista @mxchara the literal pope is against it, and, well, as a catholic,
@atax1a @ireneista @mxchara it is nice to see a world leader speaking up, even if the main perspective is "please go to church for spiritual guidance, not chat GPT"
@pencilears @atax1a @mxchara oh no. did the pope say something we agree with ><
@ireneista @pencilears @mxchara yes, the literal pope of catholicism has a better stance on AI than your average tech worker
@atax1a @ireneista I'm happy to know I'm not the only one thinking about this. Welp I guess time to write my pastor and or Bishop (Lutheran for context)
@atax1a this is how I kind of feel about "well I admit there's ecological and social issues, but..." no, let's actually talk about those and if they would be worth it even if it "worked", because I'm pretty sure they wouldn't be

@chimerror @atax1a and when you look at the argument that they somehow would be worth it, it rests on the assumption that the things will be infinitely useful. or, at least, so incredibly useful that doing math about it is meaningless.

like... no? even if we were a utilitarian and believed that good and bad can be netted out against each other, trying to do a divide-by-zero during moral reasoning just can't possibly be correct

@atax1a and if you start in with "but when the singularity happens..." fuck off and take your religion elsewhere, I'm too busy talking to the ancestors and don't want your damn machine god
@chimerror if someone said that to us we would reply ">singularity\n\nlmao" and mute them
@atax1a > no objections allowed (see also: the cries of discrimination coming from adafruit
Oh, so I was arguing with a cultist the other day. That explains so much.
@atax1a
It can be a tool when the user of the tool can verify the result. Not all tools are of equal quality. My experience producing a really quite Micky Mouse app (for instance) using CrapGPT, it generated badly written code, which at least worked. However, it hallucinated constantly in development saying “This will work”, remaining unrepentant in the face of syntax and run time errors; even blaming me. Sadly when the app needed a tweak I was abruptly hung by my own petard.
@H4Heights i think the tool here was you
@atax1a It is tool of a cow, we don't use it