5 ms·

But in all honesty, if LLMs were really that miraculous, we wouldn't have such detractors. Like, I don't remember any widespread anti-search-engine sentiment wh

by uludag 2y ago

But in all honesty, if LLMs were really that miraculous, we wouldn't have such detractors. Like, I don't remember any widespread anti-search-engine sentiment when Google came out. I can name many technologies that don't get such a visceral reaction like LLMs do. At the end of the day, we build (or should build) technology for the betterment of society. If at the end of the day, large swathes of the population are unhappy or upset at a given technology, that in and of itself should be a sign that something is wrong. Obviously LLMs aren't going away so I think we should listen to the detractors and try to better understand how we can steer this technology for the better.

Ygg2 2y ago
> don't remember any widespread anti-search-engine sentiment when Google came out. Before Google switched to Gemini AI it didn't offer making mustard gas recipe when prompted for cleaning advice. LLM are tools, and highly unreliable one at that. I don't fear it. I fear the idiots that think it is a viable replacement.
emptiestplace 2y ago
The LLMs themselves aren't the fundamental concern; rather, they represent an unprecedented amplification of existing socioeconomic stratification mechanisms. They will likely accelerate the already problematic concentration of capital and opportunity among those positioned to leverage them - and we will see, inevitably, a continuation and intensification of patterns we've observed since the dawn of industrialization. > if LLMs were really that miraculous, we wouldn't have such detractors I don't think you thought this through.
- uludag 2y ago
  Good point, often times it is the miraculous that attracts the most detractors and a benign or useless technology would be ignored. I guess I meant something more like a widespread negative reaction means something's probably not right. I also agree completely with your point on the socioeconomic context of LLMs causing the most contention and that a deployment giving more autonomy and control to its users would have a much more toned down reaction. Like, I don't really notice a strong reaction against locally deployed LLMs.
ivewonyoung 2y ago
> If at the end of the day, large swathes of the population are unhappy or upset at a given technology, that in and of itself should be a sign that something is wrong. Productivity and efficiency gains at the short term expense of inefficient jobs have always made people upset, so taking only that into consideration is wrong. > The Swing Riots were a widespread uprising in 1830 by agricultural workers in England against the mechanization of agriculture. The riots were a protest against the introduction of threshing machines, which had been increasing since the end of the 18th century. The threshing process was labor-intensive, and before the machines were introduced, it employed about 25% of all agricultural workers. The introduction of the machines gradually unemployed a large number of agricultural workers > Jethro Tull invented the seed drill in 1701, but it was not immediately popular in England. Tull's ideas were controversial, and his theories fell into disrepute. Tull's servants resisted his new methods because they threatened their position as laborers and their skill with the plow

by uludag 2y ago

Ygg2 2y ago

> don't remember any widespread anti-search-engine sentiment when Google came out. Before Google switched to Gemini AI it didn't offer making mustard gas recipe when prompted for cleaning advice. LLM are tools, and highly unreliable one at that. I don't fear it. I fear the idiots that think it is a viable replacement.

emptiestplace 2y ago

The LLMs themselves aren't the fundamental concern; rather, they represent an unprecedented amplification of existing socioeconomic stratification mechanisms. They will likely accelerate the already problematic concentration of capital and opportunity among those positioned to leverage them - and we will see, inevitably, a continuation and intensification of patterns we've observed since the dawn of industrialization. > if LLMs were really that miraculous, we wouldn't have such detractors I don't think you thought this through.

uludag 2y ago
Good point, often times it is the miraculous that attracts the most detractors and a benign or useless technology would be ignored. I guess I meant something more like a widespread negative reaction means something's probably not right. I also agree completely with your point on the socioeconomic context of LLMs causing the most contention and that a deployment giving more autonomy and control to its users would have a much more toned down reaction. Like, I don't really notice a strong reaction against locally deployed LLMs.

ivewonyoung 2y ago

> If at the end of the day, large swathes of the population are unhappy or upset at a given technology, that in and of itself should be a sign that something is wrong. Productivity and efficiency gains at the short term expense of inefficient jobs have always made people upset, so taking only that into consideration is wrong. > The Swing Riots were a widespread uprising in 1830 by agricultural workers in England against the mechanization of agriculture. The riots were a protest against the introduction of threshing machines, which had been increasing since the end of the 18th century. The threshing process was labor-intensive, and before the machines were introduced, it employed about 25% of all agricultural workers. The introduction of the machines gradually unemployed a large number of agricultural workers > Jethro Tull invented the seed drill in 1701, but it was not immediately popular in England. Tull's ideas were controversial, and his theories fell into disrepute. Tull's servants resisted his new methods because they threatened their position as laborers and their skill with the plow