4 ms·
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 c
by voidnullvalue 17d 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 17d agoNo, 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 17d agoWhat properties do LLMs possess that make human-animal moral status analogies appropriate?
- myrmidon 17d agoAbility to think/reason.