Cassandra is only carbon now1d ago
The thing I actually wanted to say about AI today, before the whole world jumped the shark yet again.
Show threadCassandra is only carbon now1d ago

Anyway, @zkat warned us. Talking about whether or not AI "works" was a trap, and always was. The ethical component is all that matters, and from that analysis alone, the onus is on all of us to reject and oppose AI.

Getting mired into whether or not it "works" is bad praxis in several ways: it de-emphasizes the ethics, it opens up to goalpost shifting about what it means for AI to "work," and it's easier for the boosters to Gish gallop or overwhelm with jargon.

Show threadalanxoc31d ago

@xgranade @zkat why not shift the conversation to how we can make it work ethically? less power consumption, ethical training data, smaller models, decentralization, protections from minors... that seems like a more productive solution than flat out rejection. and that would let you actually have a conversation with the "AI Bros" to figure out a compromise.

the technology clearly has useful advantages that could benefit humanity if applied carefully.

Show threadKaterina Marchán1d ago

@alanxoc3 @xgranade this smells a lot like "why aren't you being nice enough to the people who clearly don't care enough to listen to why we shouldn't be doing massively-damaging things?"

The onus is on them to fix their shit. Pointing out how trash their products are is a perfectly valid standpoint.

Show threadalanxoc3

@zkat @xgranade Not necessarily. I agree that the technology has and will cause massive amounts of damage if we continue this course.

But most people we interact with are just users of LLMs, not the venture capitalists that are pushing it. This kind of rhetoric really repels those people because all they know and care about is that LLMs have benefited their life.

There are a lot of these people in my life. Specifically:
- Parents that are surprised and excited when ChatGPT answers their questions.
- Small business owners trying to get a general sense of the market before doing more research.
- People resolving technical issues, rather than spending hours on forums they don't understand.
- People who want to learn a new skill and want answers to basic questions in that domain.
- The person who was anxious about everything and spreading that anxiety to others, but now doing so less because LLMs can answer many of the simple questions.

So far in my life, I have only seen a net-positive outcome so far (outside the software industry, which would be net-negative).

Out of all those people, I am by FAR the most skeptical and most closely aligned to users I see here on Mastodon.

However none of those people want to lose this technology, but they would all be happier and more likely to switch if there is an ethically sustainable solution.

Once they hear we should "reject and oppose AI", they will not listen, because it has already impacted their lives.

Hope I'm getting my point across correctly.

1:36pmWeb
Show threadKaterina Marchán5h ago

@alanxoc3 @xgranade

https://tldr.nettime.org/@tante/116369280503008449

Using this as a similar argument, there’s plenty of examples where consumers are convinced against using something valuable because their sourcing is unethical. Consider the popularity of even something like… pasture-raised eggs.

It doesn’t need to be universal but pretending people never care is ridiculous

tante (@[email protected])

"But X is useful" is not the good defense you think it is. Who is it useful to, for what purposes and who bears the costs/harms? Child labor is useful (to people wanting to squeeze out some money from desperate people). We still think that it should not exist. (X in this case is a variable not a fascist social network site)

tldr.nettime