Comment on Anon is waiting for Japan
dustyData@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago“If the argument want as you have laid it out, I would not dismiss it.”
Your autocorrect software is failing you.
What is your argument? It is OK for a few people to hurt others, since you personally are benefiting, in a very small way, from the cruelty? That’s a shit argument to make.
If AI is “just a tool”, then how come it doesn’t do any of the things it is promised to do? The issue is not expecting “a hammer to drive to work”. The problem is that LLMs makers promised a car, you order one, and receive a screwdriver on the mail. Because “screwdrivers are just a tool, you can use it to assemble a car”. It’s a scam, it is fraud, it is lying and stealing from others to capitalize on bad tech.
If AI is just a tool, its an unethical and immoral tool.
uranibaba@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
I’m trying to say that one should call a fraud a fraud, not a bad screwdriver.
That is not what I tried to say.
dustyData@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
Want to discuss the technical qualities of napalm?
I mean, it’s obviously not a “bad” tool of warfare, it’s just the bad people who use it. It obviously is a separate issue from war crimes committed with it, there’s nothing inherently wrong with napalm.
This idea that technology must be evaluated on a vacuum, disconnected from the context that created and uses it, is disingenuous at best and malicious at its worst. Technology, tools, inventions, carry with them the moral and ethical burden of their historical context.
LLMs as we know them today, came to be from massive theft, and continue to promote their own use and improvement with further thievery, fraud and lies. The fraud is not a separate topic, it’s intrinsically a part of LLMs. To speak of LLMs is to speak about fraud, copyright infringement and theft. They cannot exist without theft, at least not in their current level of prowess and use. To defend them is to promote corporate crimes on a billion dollars and worldwide scale.
uranibaba@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
If you want to shit on OpenAI because you think they stink, that is fine. If you want to shit on their LLM because you think it sucks, that is also fine. But don’t say that the concept of LLM sucks because OpenAI and their product is bad or their marketing of said product. Say that LLM sucks because there is no regulation and companies are using this to hurt people. Say that OpenAIs LLM suck because they took from the people to create it without giving back. Don’t say that OpenAIs LLM cannot produce good output becuase they stole, because the output is good. Stealing is still wrong. Don’t say that someone else is worse at what they are doing because they used an LLM. Say that they are worse at what they are doing because (and if) they cannot do it without an LLM.
It would be a nice discussion if you did not try to argue on bad faith. Of course I don’t want to compare something that is meant to kill with something that could if you really try. Should be ban ropes because you can strangle people with them? Of course not, that’s stupid and you know it.
dustyData@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
But, the output is trash. Only incompetent people think LLMs produce great results. They don’t.