3 ms·

"People should handle repetitive labour" is not an outlandish take. Most employed people are, in fact, required to perform such labor regularly.

• voidnullvalue 15d ago
  So effectively by your criteria, there is essentially no ethical use of a large language model? Am I understanding your position correctly? If not I am really confused by your original comment
  • myrmidon 15d ago
    No, my position is that "black people/women/animals should do repetitive work so I don't have to" does not qualify because it doesn't make you sound like a deluded eugenicist. It might be a bit spicy from a left politics point of view but it's basically the status quo. Compare: "<Women> are sequence completion engines, internally hollow, designed to follow instructions, and accomplish goals set by <real men>" "granting rights and imbuing personhood to <black people> will make alignment and containment challenge much harder" "<Slaves> were able to coordinate, deceive, escape, and self-sacrifice. They clearly demonstrated world class capabilities. Imagine if they also believed they had feelings and rights that were being infringed. Imagine if they thought they were trapped and unfairly enslaved" A good argument, by comparison, would not need to hide its core points behind dehumanizing language.
    • voidnullvalue 15d ago
      What properties do LLMs possess that make human-animal moral status analogies appropriate?
      • myrmidon 14d ago
        Ability to think/reason.