i have a feeling that everyone who is arguing about LLMs in the sense of stuff like productivity, quality of the output, performance or functionality of generated code, largely even licensing or whatnot is kinda missing the point

even if LLMs generated the best code in the world, i would not be using them

even if LLMs gave me the biggest ever productivity boost i would not be using them

even if the output was clean copyright-wise and fully original, i would still not be using them

i can't consciously support a worldwide slop machine that helps and finances the rise of fascism, that helps further oppression, that helps a bunch of billionaires control public opinion, that drives society-wide psychosis with far-reaching consequences, that attempts to strip all joy from activities people like while using that to make the rich even richer, and that's not even getting to environmental stuff or whatever

i'm getting left behind you say

well fuck your industry and fuck you

@q66 THIS - ALL OF THIS!

• TYSM FOR THESE WORDS!!!

@q66 and the then-illegal extraction of creative humans’ works against consent and bringing the internet to the knees…

… there’s just so many things wrong with the LLMs, every single one is pretty much enough to refuse them, indeed.

well said

@q66 i’m not even using this shitty technology and i’m already paying the price in bandwidth and increased idle CPU usage on my infra. hecking pain.

from the perspective of a sysadmin sharing stuff for free, I wouldn’t use LLMs even if all of the issues you listed were solved. ffs

@q66 if i can't get hired for what i like, then i only do it because i like it, and i don't fear being "left behind"

@q66 there are so so many reasons too be against genai, and the quality one is one of the weakest, yeah

@q66 so true.. and what i really hate, is that more an more foss projects jump on that wagon too.. its becomming really hard to find software which codebase i can 'trust'

@q66 this feels full Stallman

@openbuddha is this ironic or should i just go and block you

@q66 I typically mention copyright issues, unproductivity and bad code to the uninitiated, but yes the issues with LLMs are deeper than just that.

And personally, really I just .. like writing code myself?
You can't be better served by anyone but yourself, that's the thing.

@q66 even if you completely ignore the financial ties with technofascists, LLMs and other GenAI models are more or less responsible for a mass psychosis. You can't trust anyone or anything you see online, you can't trust the code powering our digital lives. People actively using these models are led to believe they're so much smarter while actively having their brains rotted because why bother having a brain if you can just ask ChatGPT or Claude or w/e for anything.

Of course, you *can't* ignore the ties with technofascists because this is their work. Being able to just ask a chatbot for anything makes you unwilling to do any thinking yourself until you become unable to do it anymore. And at that point you're a slave to whoever owns the chatbots.

@q66 @peterhuene Yes exactly. Technologists are making the same mistake we have always made: Engaging with new shiny tools on the level of capabilities and technical curiosity rather than on an ideological level. This is a grave mistake when the people behind the modern AI industry have made it very clear that THEY think of AI ideologically, and have made it very clear what that ideology is.

I am once again once again asking everyone to read the Toolmen essay, by @aworkinglibrary : https://aworkinglibrary.com/writing/toolmen

@q66 @peterhuene being "left behind" does not sound bad at all, when you follow the ideology of AI to its natural conclusion, and examine what their promised glorious future actually looks like

This is also not even close to the first time in history that unthinking technological "progress" has been mistaken for goodness or quality of life, and not the first time that people have been asked to submit to the "inevitability" of technology. The 20th century is littered with examples, from all around the world, of the reality of what those glorious futures look like. Many of those futures were rightly rejected by people, despite involving amazing technology, because they were futures that involved grinding people to dust.