alt Hacker NewsTwo things are important to me:
1. All modern LLMs are (in my eyes) inherently morally problematic. They were trained on stolen information, and where they didn't break the law they corrupted social contracts. Their manner of operation is also problematic: disadvantaged communities are being exploited at a rapidly increasing disproportionate rate in the name of "more compute".
2. I am fundamentally disinterested in the productivity mindset that LLMs lean into. I don't care to "produce more"; the value of my work does not lie in the amount of money that can be gotten in exchange for it. This is an easier position to hold as someone who does not hold a typical corporate job, but even if I did I would still resist because an increase in my output would not correlate to an increase in my salary.
At the root of it all is people. I care about people (their existence, their happiness, my connections to them, their connections to each other), and any use of LLMs is (in my mind) anti-people, so I want no part of it.
Replies
> At the root of it all is people. I care about people (their existence, their happiness, my connections to them, their connections to each other)
100% agree. That's what it is all about. That, and our time.
> and any use of LLMs is (in my mind) anti-people
Hard disagree. A lot of good can be done for the people with this tech. Blanket rejection of an entire category of technology has not worked out well for the disadvantaged communities in the past. We have plenty of history.
>1. All modern LLMs are (in my eyes) inherently morally problematic.
Yes, I think this is a key point and I'm not surprised to hear it. It's a fundamental problem with AI. It's not something that will disappear as it becomes more useful or makes less mistakes.
How do you feel about a dependency that was written by AI? It seems like things will get progressively harder and harder to maintain a real boundary, outside of just writing everything yourself. And perhaps hosting.
> I would still resist because an increase in my output would not correlate to an increase in my salary
It will correlate to you still having a job.
"Resisting" is like refusing to use a shovel at your ditch-digging job.
"but even if I did I would still resist because an increase in my output would not correlate to an increase in my salary."
Then you simply would be let go.
> the value of my work does not lie in the amount of money that can be gotten in exchange for it.
What do you think money is?
It's a rough proxy approximation for value. So yes, the amount of money you can get for your work is rough approximation of its value.
You can also have a precious pet rock that you personally hold very dear and well "valueable" - but valuable to nobody but you only. So realistically it has zero value to everyone else.
If you don't care about creating value, you don't care about people.
As, ultimately, it costs money to care for people, and if you don't have it - all you have are prayers and best wishes, and you functionally can't help anyone.
> 1. All modern LLMs are (in my eyes) inherently morally problematic. They were trained on stolen information, and where they didn't break the law they corrupted social contracts.
It's bizarre to me that over what feels like less than a year, enforcement of intellectual property and copyright laws has become the most important moral principle. Suddenly, it's your moral duty to enforce Disney's trademark of Mickey Mouse.
I reject this moral framing completely. Information wants to be free!