3 ms·

> than you'd like to admit, and some conversations that are worth having in earnest instead of simply resorting to trivial things like Sure the author wants to

> than you'd like to admit, and some conversations that are worth having in earnest instead of simply resorting to trivial things like Sure the author wants to talk about technical specifics of Llms. Yet Llms enable a lot of people to avoid understanding even the technical points of it. That would disincentivize people from understanding enough to have discourse which the author considers valuable. > In the same way that a reality where we have things like bulldozers, printing presses, looms, and a cotton gin doesn't actually suck, at the end of the day. I really don’t care about the grand scheme of things type responses to criticism of Llms. But for the sake of argument why should I care about discussing Llms and their technical aspects if in the grand scheme of things we’re all to eventually die? It is the end of the sentence because most people can’t imagine what comes next besides not having a job. It’s not that they won’t be fine if a super AI takes over tomorrow, it’s that is literally the limit of their concerns today is making money for themselves. It might be different if Llms actually made the users richer but it doesn’t it makes the corporations richer.

horsawlarway 1y ago
> But for the sake of argument why should I care about discussing Llms and their technical aspects if in the grand scheme of things we’re all to eventually die? Why do anything, then? This is the laziest possible retort I can imagine.
- righthand 1y ago
  > In the same way that a reality where we have things like bulldozers, printing presses, looms, and a cotton gin doesn't actually suck, at the end of the day. So you’re allowed that type of rhetoric, but when I use it, it’s lazy. My point has been that it sucks, now. Right now, it’s hysterical on both sides of the conversation. So yes it sucks. In the grand scheme of things it may not suck or it could get even worse. Again one side of the conversation is choosing to promote only one of those ideas. Even though there is no evidence we will end up in a utopia from it. In fact there’s a lot of evidence to the contrary. So yes the conversation sucks. The reality right now sucks.
  - horsawlarway 1y ago
    Yes, because - to be blunt - yours is so much lazier. I picked machines that were undeniably controversial at the time they were introduced, because they did all the things you're claiming to be upset about here: They put people out of work, they enriched capital owners, they changed social structures, they altered governments. Essentially - they are relevant discussion items for the topic at hand (if you're unaware, the general term "luddite" for use as "anti-technology" directly comes from the english textile workers getting replaced by looms, which they tried to destroy repeatedly, and were eventually suppressed with military force, with sentences including execution and exile to penal colonies). That's not some blasé "waves hand 'technology good'" reference I'm making, and I think your response is partially so annoying because we likely agree on a lot of things about the potential negative impacts of AI. I just think the way you're articulating it is relatively low effort, and I think the original post is absolutely allowed to say that. You'll get dismissed because you're so obviously wrong about the easily verifiable things that it's hard to take you seriously about anything. Which is exactly the impact of comments like "Why talk about this because we'll all eventually die" - they alienate your allies because they are trivial and trite trash.
    - righthand 1y ago
      Okay well as long as we’re delivering low effort attacks, I totally agree and think the same of you. I can’t take your response or ANYTHING you say seriously. Good talk, you’re right there’s plenty of good discourse on AI between people. This conversation is a winning example.

horsawlarway 1y ago

> But for the sake of argument why should I care about discussing Llms and their technical aspects if in the grand scheme of things we’re all to eventually die? Why do anything, then? This is the laziest possible retort I can imagine.

righthand 1y ago
> In the same way that a reality where we have things like bulldozers, printing presses, looms, and a cotton gin doesn't actually suck, at the end of the day. So you’re allowed that type of rhetoric, but when I use it, it’s lazy. My point has been that it sucks, now. Right now, it’s hysterical on both sides of the conversation. So yes it sucks. In the grand scheme of things it may not suck or it could get even worse. Again one side of the conversation is choosing to promote only one of those ideas. Even though there is no evidence we will end up in a utopia from it. In fact there’s a lot of evidence to the contrary. So yes the conversation sucks. The reality right now sucks.
- horsawlarway 1y ago
  Yes, because - to be blunt - yours is so much lazier. I picked machines that were undeniably controversial at the time they were introduced, because they did all the things you're claiming to be upset about here: They put people out of work, they enriched capital owners, they changed social structures, they altered governments. Essentially - they are relevant discussion items for the topic at hand (if you're unaware, the general term "luddite" for use as "anti-technology" directly comes from the english textile workers getting replaced by looms, which they tried to destroy repeatedly, and were eventually suppressed with military force, with sentences including execution and exile to penal colonies). That's not some blasé "waves hand 'technology good'" reference I'm making, and I think your response is partially so annoying because we likely agree on a lot of things about the potential negative impacts of AI. I just think the way you're articulating it is relatively low effort, and I think the original post is absolutely allowed to say that. You'll get dismissed because you're so obviously wrong about the easily verifiable things that it's hard to take you seriously about anything. Which is exactly the impact of comments like "Why talk about this because we'll all eventually die" - they alienate your allies because they are trivial and trite trash.
  - righthand 1y ago
    Okay well as long as we’re delivering low effort attacks, I totally agree and think the same of you. I can’t take your response or ANYTHING you say seriously. Good talk, you’re right there’s plenty of good discourse on AI between people. This conversation is a winning example.