4 ms·
If you're a hacker, which most of you are not (things have changed here over time), you will reject this. You'll also recognize that the problem is not AI in g
by CamperBob2 4mo ago
If you're a hacker, which most of you are not (things have changed here over time), you will reject this.
You'll also recognize that the problem is not AI in general or LLMs in particular, but the proprietary entities that control the best models.
That's the part HN'ers seem to have the most trouble with. They protest AI qua AI, as if that's somehow going to help, when they should be fighting for independent development and universal access.
- 01284a7e 4mo ago"they should be fighting for independent development and universal access". Well stated.
- lstodd 4mo agoI see no sense in fighting for "independent development and universal access" of and to a fundamentally useless thing. I only snark at those who try to mislabel that thing as something useful. Which it is not.
- CamperBob2 4mo agoI see no sense in fighting for "independent development and universal access" of and to a fundamentally useless thing. That's why they call us "hackers," and they call you something else.
- lstodd 4mo agoHaha no. "Fighting for" is political activism, not hacking. Find curious uses for, exploit in inventive ways, reimplement even -- yes. Fighting -- get off our lawn.
- nearlyepic 4mo ago> when they should be fighting for independent development and universal access. Because it’s literally not going to happen. The existence of LLMs is a function of how much capital you have. Frontier models require so many resources to train and run that they are functionally inaccessible to the average person. That’s why capital loves them! It’s a resources play. You’re also conveniently leaving out all of the other negative aspects of LLMs/GenAI with regards to the arts, open communication, etc..