• 9 Posts
  • 19 Comments
Joined 5 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 8th, 2019

help-circle




  • nah, you will attract only those that already kinda agree. All the others will see weirdos with weird ideas, weird clothing and weird vocabulary, approaching them in the street or promoting events that they don’t care about.

    “talking to people” is something I do since I’m in union organizing and the way people react to the same arguments varies wildly over time. After the waves of layoffs in the tech sector, non-politicized tech workers are incredibly more receptive to pro-union rhetoric, in a way that would have been impossible before.

    About accelerationism: I’m not saying failing an election is a necessary step in a teleological sense. You should enter elections to win them, if you do it. Nonetheless it is useful to radicalize people. It is a recuperation of what is perceived as a defeat in a system in order to feed a different system. Electoral betrayal is useful, but not necessarily something you should strive for, as an armchair accelerationist would claim. There are better ways to spend your time and energy imho, but if it happens, it is still good manure for growing the seeds of something new.



  • The mistake of this logic is to believe that this betrayal of electoral logic won’t radicalize people. It is a necessary step. There are now 11 Million French people, many of which probably don’t believe much in electoralism but vote anyway, who are furious at what’s happening.

    People don’t change their mind listening to arguments, they change their mind living experiences. The experience of joy after winning, followed by the disregard of democratic logic by Macron, will mobilize an insane amount of popular energy, contrary to snarky “electoralism doesn’t work” comments that are relatable only to a microscopic niche of edgy, maximalist leftists.





  • They just allocate according to different logic than the mainstream american FOSS ideology. For instance, hackerbros, and you seem to say the same, will tell you that resources should be centralized into the biggest project in its own category to add more and more features to it. Regardless of cooptation from the private sector, this is generally a bad idea. It leads to a monoculture and monoculture leads to critical bugs impacting enormous amount of users. Also it’s predicated on the idea that there should be only a single way to fullfill a specific use-case, and that it’s the same throughout the world, erasing cultural, economic, social, biological and political differences. Optimization requires standardization, standardization requires erasure and suppression of minoritarian voices and it’s therefore oppressive. Maximizing it is not a good idea, both for technical, political and ethical reasons.

    Seeding new projects that better fit local contexts, or simply produce diverse alternatives raises diversity and in turns raises resilience of the software ecosystem as a whole.















  • This paper explain a taxonomy of harms created by LLMs: https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3531146.3533088

    OpenAI released ChatGPT without systems to prevent or compensate these harms and being fully aware of the consequences, since this kind of research has been going on for several years. In the meanwhile they’ve put some paper-thin countermeasures on some of these problems but they are still pretty much a shit-show in terms of accountability. Most likely they will get sued into oblivion before regulators outlaw LLMs with dialogical interfaces. This won’t do much for the harm that open-source LLMs will create but at least will limit large-scale harm to the general population.


  • They published a deliberately harmful tool against the advice of civil society, experts and competitors. They are not only reckless but tasked since their foundation with the mission to create chaos. Don’t forget the idea behind OpenAI in the beginning was to damage the advantage that Google and Facebook had on AI by releasing machine learning technology in open source. They definitely did it and now they are expanding their goals. They are not in for the money (ChatGPT will never be profitable), they are playing a bigger game.

    Pushing the AI panic is not just a marketing strategy but a way to build power. The more they are considered dangerous, the more regulations will be passed that will impact the whole sector. https://fortune.com/2023/05/30/sam-altman-ai-risk-of-extinction-pandemics-nuclear-warfare/



  • chobeat@lemmy.mltoLemmy@lemmy.mlAI scraping of Lemmy
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Right now the whole model of generative AI and in general LLM is built on the assumption that training a machine learning model is not a problem for licenses, copyright and whatever. Obviously this is bringing to huge legal battles and before their outcome is clear and a new legal pratice or specific regulations are established in EU and USA, there’s no point discussing licenses.

    Also licenses don’t prevent anything, they are not magic. If small or big AI companies feel safe in violating these laws or just profit enough to pay fines, they will keep doing it. It’s the same with FOSS licenses: most small companies violate licenses and unless you have whistleblowers, you never find out. Even then, the legal path is very long. Only big corporate scared of humongous lawsuits really care about it, but small startups? Small consultancies? They don’t care. Licenses are just a sign that says “STOP! Or go on, I’m a license, not a cop”