Long answer: yes, because private property of the means of production is bad. And because AIs got where they are now by stealing content. And because most major AI-companies are in major with fascist and genocidal governments. And because they’re speedrunning environmental collapse.
Also, are we forgetting that AI models were trained by stealing from a fuckton of people? How are folks ok with this? Why is the discussion solely about how well the models work? Where is everyone’s moral compass? And why would they defend a tool explicitly built to replace them? Not to mention how inefficient it is (energy and money-wise).
Why is it that every single time you see someone trying to claim the role of ‘adult in the room’, they appear to be speaking from a perspective of being perfectly oblivious (albeit sometimes for the purpose of obfuscation)?
Even if you disagree with them, people who oppose LLM usage for ethical reasons still exist for example.
You aren’t making yourself seem above it as you would like, you are making yourself look unable to intellectually engage with the concept.
Why is it that every single time you see someone trying to claim the role of ‘adult in the room’, they appear to be speaking from a perspective of being perfectly oblivious (albeit sometimes for the purpose of obfuscation)?
Did you miss the part where OP’s entire argument was ‘fuckstick’?
Yes, fuckstick. That’s the whole point to a lot of people. I swear, the level of smugness of AI true believers is totally inappropriate.
Children don’t typically express honesty with ‘fuckstick’. ‘Childish’ here is used to refer to the absence of capacity or ability to engage in constructive discussion. But feel free to keep painting ‘fuckstick’ in any shade you like. I personally prefer ‘Yo mama’ jokes when I lack the ability to win a particular argument.
Sure, but calling people fuckstick isn’t used on a large scale to shut down conversation, there is a qualitative difference here.
Edit: I belatedly see your point that it could have been directly in response to that, in which case the pattern recognition was misfiring and I apologise.
Sure, but calling people fuckstick isn’t used on a large scale to shut down conversation, there is a qualitative difference here.
Maybe if ‘fuckstick’ was followed by a coherent argument. But instead of providing one, OP just continues to throw insults about their reasonable perspective somehow being ‘smug’ in some way. I’d call that childish too.
the discussion of ethics is irrelevant as long as we live in capitalism. there’s not ethical consumption under capitalism, using ai is no different from eating chocolate or drinking coffee. you’d be surprised by the amount of slave labour that’s used today. now, if you oppose because of technological limitations, such as water/energy consumption, this is a very different topic and it’s not an ethical one, which to be honest is not even a very valid argument since it has been solved by open local models. then you might have an issue with the corporations behind some models, but that’s not an issue with “AI”. i also dislike the west, but to be AI is not israelgpt.
no, that would be me if i’d say we can’t move away from capitalism. i am a marxist leninist, i am very much in favour of ending this shit your people have imposed on the rest of mankind. the argument here is use or not use ai for ethical reason, this is what i oppose. it’s not ethical, it’s reactionary and it doesn’t produce a better outcome. i am in favour of a more ethical ai. this implies open local models, not using western models, and regulation and standardization.
you don’t understand how ethics works under capitalism. you didn’t understand what i said. my point is that arguing for ethical consumption, which is the argument you’re using, is a flase argument because it doesn’t exist. if you want to address some of the other issues, there are possibilities for ethical change, tho!
I don’t need you to tell me any of this, much less in such a condescending way, I am perfectly aware of how the world works. It does, however, amount to a rhetorical sidestep, and I know how it goes from here. Have a good one.
If a piece of art is “good” who cares where it came from? The “where it came from” is as integral to the “quality” of the art as the “art” itself.
This is a very “product” mindset, concerned with the end result and how it serves you. Myself, and many others, are not as concerned with that or they may be against AI for other ethical or environmental reasons.
The take you’re giving presupposes that the utility of the end result is the only axis upon which to judge something.
In the universe where the “where it came from” can’t affect the end quality, the question itself indeed becomes irrelevant. And in case of the Linux kernel it is indeed irrelevant, as the code will be reviewed, appraised and tested before releasing.
And yes, the utilitary mindset is more applicable towards code than it is to art. Unless we’re talking about stuff like ioccc, where the code itself is the form of art, code is just a mean, not the end.
You can see my other posts in this same thread but I think you are taking that claim as a given. If I’m judging two pieces of software, why should I only use utility to my needs as the axis upon which I judge them? Why is that ontologically the correct method of judgement?
Why shouldn’t I treat alignment with my values, the degree to which the code fostered a community that was pro-social, or the beauty of the code as the means by which I judge the code?
Yeah but that’s art. Code is very much a means to an end. Code can be artistic i suppose but it does actually have to do something at the end of the day. And if it works it works.
I disagree with the presumption that code is a means to an ends. That axiom assumes that having “ends” at all is valid and beyond reproach.
What do we really need in life? Why must the code provide a utility to us. The same is true of every discipline.
As a community, as a society, we can determine what problem areas we must consider “utilitarian” and what we don’t. Capitalism, neoliberalism, these ideologies take utility as the given end goal for an entire society and all of it’s facets. Everything must be sacrificed in the name of line-go-up.
My chief argument is that at this point 90% of daily human needs are met, in excess, by the tools and systems we already have. AI provides utility, certainly, but why should I want it?
Definitely agree with a lot of that. Indeed in this era of abundance why do we need to squeeze more and more out of everything.
However computing has been one of the most valuable inventions of all time. A script is usually written to automate a process. If the script doesn’t work, it’s useless. Not all disciplines are the same. The value of the code is what it does.
You can certainly talk about the horrors of AI under capitalism but i don’t think open source developers should have to think about it. I’d rather they make software better for everyone than get tied up thinking about how to solve the impossible.
One of the values of code is what it does. Just like one of the values of a chisel is its ability to perform the functions of a chisel.
Other values include fostering human connection, instilling a sense of beauty in the reader, prompting deeper contemplation on the part of the reader, etc.
When I read code I do so to understand what the author was thinking and feeling at the time of writing it. AI completely obfuscates this. It removes any merit of the code aside from what it does which, for me, is the code’s least interesting feature.
Prior to AI I could reasonably expect every piece of software I interacted with to have been made by a human, every piece of software could be interegated like a painting or a novel. Now I have to assume all code is tainted until proven otherwise which means all code is assumed to be largely worthless. At least, as valuable as a novel is as a paper weight.
In the span of a year we have gone from an abundance of hand crafted works of art to an ocean of worthless slop.
Honestly yes. In all but the most niche of software there are dozens if not hundreds of versions of the same application. I am awash in options. In an age where, for most small use cases, I can literally ask a chatbot to generate an app for my use case a code’s utility is even less valuable than it was before.
As to the distinction of AI = bad and Human = good; this is, again, presupposing utility as not only the primary but singular axis I’m supposed to judge code.
Like I’ve said elsewhere here. For me I judge code by a combination of its utility, it’s ability to foster community and the community it has fostered, the Inherit “beauty” of the code itself, the richness of the documentation, the degree to which the code exposes new ideas to me, and most of all I read the code, and use it, in order to understand the thoughts and feeling of the person who made it.
I judge code largely by the same axis by which I judge a painting or a novel. I don’t consume AI ‘art’ or AI ‘writing’, why would I consume AI ‘code’?
Completely this.
As long as the code is good,. does it matter where it came from?
Short answer, yes.
Long answer: yes, because private property of the means of production is bad. And because AIs got where they are now by stealing content. And because most major AI-companies are in major with fascist and genocidal governments. And because they’re speedrunning environmental collapse.
Yes, fuckstick. That’s the whole point to a lot of people.
I swear, the level of smugness of AI true believers is totally inappropriate.
Also, are we forgetting that AI models were trained by stealing from a fuckton of people? How are folks ok with this? Why is the discussion solely about how well the models work? Where is everyone’s moral compass? And why would they defend a tool explicitly built to replace them? Not to mention how inefficient it is (energy and money-wise).
Genie is not going back into the bottle.
we’ll be waiting in the grown ups room while you figure out how to answer the question “why?”
Why is it that every single time you see someone trying to claim the role of ‘adult in the room’, they appear to be speaking from a perspective of being perfectly oblivious (albeit sometimes for the purpose of obfuscation)?
Even if you disagree with them, people who oppose LLM usage for ethical reasons still exist for example.
You aren’t making yourself seem above it as you would like, you are making yourself look unable to intellectually engage with the concept.
What I find funny do the people who oppose llms for ethical.reasons also oppose every other tech they use for ethical reasons.
Did you miss the part where OP’s entire argument was ‘fuckstick’?
In their defense, some people just are fucksticks.
Sure, but if ‘fuckstick’ is your sole ‘argument’, you can’t exactly call foul when someone declines to engage with you for being childish.
Well, they were being truthful and children tend to be exceedingly honest. So yes, it was childish, in a way.
Children don’t typically express honesty with ‘fuckstick’. ‘Childish’ here is used to refer to the absence of capacity or ability to engage in constructive discussion. But feel free to keep painting ‘fuckstick’ in any shade you like. I personally prefer ‘Yo mama’ jokes when I lack the ability to win a particular argument.
Sure, but calling people fuckstick isn’t used on a large scale to shut down conversation, there is a qualitative difference here.
Edit: I belatedly see your point that it could have been directly in response to that, in which case the pattern recognition was misfiring and I apologise.
Maybe if ‘fuckstick’ was followed by a coherent argument. But instead of providing one, OP just continues to throw insults about their reasonable perspective somehow being ‘smug’ in some way. I’d call that childish too.
the discussion of ethics is irrelevant as long as we live in capitalism. there’s not ethical consumption under capitalism, using ai is no different from eating chocolate or drinking coffee. you’d be surprised by the amount of slave labour that’s used today. now, if you oppose because of technological limitations, such as water/energy consumption, this is a very different topic and it’s not an ethical one, which to be honest is not even a very valid argument since it has been solved by open local models. then you might have an issue with the corporations behind some models, but that’s not an issue with “AI”. i also dislike the west, but to be AI is not israelgpt.
Have you seen this meme? That’s you. That’s what you sound like.
no, that would be me if i’d say we can’t move away from capitalism. i am a marxist leninist, i am very much in favour of ending this shit your people have imposed on the rest of mankind. the argument here is use or not use ai for ethical reason, this is what i oppose. it’s not ethical, it’s reactionary and it doesn’t produce a better outcome. i am in favour of a more ethical ai. this implies open local models, not using western models, and regulation and standardization.
Nah, that’s you.
thank you for being the literal personification of a westoid.
“Everything is unethical therefore I don’t have to make ethical choices” is bad logic and morally wrong
you don’t understand how ethics works under capitalism. you didn’t understand what i said. my point is that arguing for ethical consumption, which is the argument you’re using, is a flase argument because it doesn’t exist. if you want to address some of the other issues, there are possibilities for ethical change, tho!
Ethics aren’t black and white but shades of grey. There are indeed more and less ethical choices to make within capitalism.
right, good luck voting fascism away with your wallet!
I don’t need you to tell me any of this, much less in such a condescending way, I am perfectly aware of how the world works. It does, however, amount to a rhetorical sidestep, and I know how it goes from here. Have a good one.
Yes.
If a piece of art is “good” who cares where it came from? The “where it came from” is as integral to the “quality” of the art as the “art” itself.
This is a very “product” mindset, concerned with the end result and how it serves you. Myself, and many others, are not as concerned with that or they may be against AI for other ethical or environmental reasons.
The take you’re giving presupposes that the utility of the end result is the only axis upon which to judge something.
In the universe where the “where it came from” can’t affect the end quality, the question itself indeed becomes irrelevant. And in case of the Linux kernel it is indeed irrelevant, as the code will be reviewed, appraised and tested before releasing.
And yes, the utilitary mindset is more applicable towards code than it is to art. Unless we’re talking about stuff like ioccc, where the code itself is the form of art, code is just a mean, not the end.
Why is it more applicable to code than art?
You can see my other posts in this same thread but I think you are taking that claim as a given. If I’m judging two pieces of software, why should I only use utility to my needs as the axis upon which I judge them? Why is that ontologically the correct method of judgement?
Why shouldn’t I treat alignment with my values, the degree to which the code fostered a community that was pro-social, or the beauty of the code as the means by which I judge the code?
Yeah but that’s art. Code is very much a means to an end. Code can be artistic i suppose but it does actually have to do something at the end of the day. And if it works it works.
I disagree with the presumption that code is a means to an ends. That axiom assumes that having “ends” at all is valid and beyond reproach.
What do we really need in life? Why must the code provide a utility to us. The same is true of every discipline.
As a community, as a society, we can determine what problem areas we must consider “utilitarian” and what we don’t. Capitalism, neoliberalism, these ideologies take utility as the given end goal for an entire society and all of it’s facets. Everything must be sacrificed in the name of line-go-up.
My chief argument is that at this point 90% of daily human needs are met, in excess, by the tools and systems we already have. AI provides utility, certainly, but why should I want it?
Definitely agree with a lot of that. Indeed in this era of abundance why do we need to squeeze more and more out of everything.
However computing has been one of the most valuable inventions of all time. A script is usually written to automate a process. If the script doesn’t work, it’s useless. Not all disciplines are the same. The value of the code is what it does.
You can certainly talk about the horrors of AI under capitalism but i don’t think open source developers should have to think about it. I’d rather they make software better for everyone than get tied up thinking about how to solve the impossible.
That is so incredibly wrong that I don’t know where to even begin. Yes, they should think about it. We all should.
Open source developers do not have the power to enact change. AI needs regulation which must come from governments.
What a lame excuse for complicity.
One of the values of code is what it does. Just like one of the values of a chisel is its ability to perform the functions of a chisel.
Other values include fostering human connection, instilling a sense of beauty in the reader, prompting deeper contemplation on the part of the reader, etc.
When I read code I do so to understand what the author was thinking and feeling at the time of writing it. AI completely obfuscates this. It removes any merit of the code aside from what it does which, for me, is the code’s least interesting feature.
Prior to AI I could reasonably expect every piece of software I interacted with to have been made by a human, every piece of software could be interegated like a painting or a novel. Now I have to assume all code is tainted until proven otherwise which means all code is assumed to be largely worthless. At least, as valuable as a novel is as a paper weight.
In the span of a year we have gone from an abundance of hand crafted works of art to an ocean of worthless slop.
What code does is the least intetesting part of it for you?
Idk, AI use doesn’t automatically make something slop just like writing by hand doesn’t automatically make it good.
Honestly yes. In all but the most niche of software there are dozens if not hundreds of versions of the same application. I am awash in options. In an age where, for most small use cases, I can literally ask a chatbot to generate an app for my use case a code’s utility is even less valuable than it was before.
As to the distinction of AI = bad and Human = good; this is, again, presupposing utility as not only the primary but singular axis I’m supposed to judge code.
Like I’ve said elsewhere here. For me I judge code by a combination of its utility, it’s ability to foster community and the community it has fostered, the Inherit “beauty” of the code itself, the richness of the documentation, the degree to which the code exposes new ideas to me, and most of all I read the code, and use it, in order to understand the thoughts and feeling of the person who made it.
I judge code largely by the same axis by which I judge a painting or a novel. I don’t consume AI ‘art’ or AI ‘writing’, why would I consume AI ‘code’?