Cassandra is only carbon now3d 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 now3d 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 threadCassandra is only carbon now3d ago
Sure enough, that's where we are now. I'm as guilty of that as anyone, to be sure. But like... all weekend, there have been so many new claims about AI "working," and every one takes a lot of effort to read critically and debunk. None of them change the ethical calculus.
Show threadtechnomancy3d ago

@xgranade reminds me of this post I read recently about how arguing against a claim involves implicitly accepting its framing

https://anthonymoser.github.io/writing/rhetoric/framing/kirby/2026/01/28/the-kirby-frame.html

The Kirby Frame

writing is a technology, frames are a frame. bespoke human content.

moser’s frame shop
Show threadnellie-m

@brib

Thank you for this link, it’s really very helpful for a different kind of thing I’m working on right now. 💛

Apr 8 at 8:02pmWeb
Show threadbrib ​ 1d ago
@nellie_m It is advice I should follow. But given I spent even more hours investigating AI security claims (and finding out that the data isn't quite matching up) this is a "do as I say" situation.