More likely you’re more interested in finding a way to disagree with the concept of posiwid than in doing basic research or listening.

It’s funny when y’all use “fear mongering” for people pointing out systemic issues with ai and its hype. Though it’s honestly tragic how uninterested you are in considering why AI and its hype is being criticized. Whatever makes the exploitative slave labor trained energy hungry silicon make venture capital money disappear, eh?

It’s a very common talking point now to claim technology exists independent of the culture surrounding it. It is a lie to justify morally vacant research which the, normally venture capitalist, is only concerned about the money to be made. But engineers and scientists necessarily go along with it. It’s not not your problem because we are the ones executing cultural wants, we are a part of the broader culture as well.

The purpose of a system is, absolutely, what it does. It doesn’t matter how well intentioned your design and ethics were, once the system is doing things, those things are its purpose. Your waste heat example, yes, it was the design intent to eliminate that, but now that’s what it does, and the engineers damn well understand that its purpose is to generate waste heat in order to do whatever work it’s doing.

This is a systems engineering concept. And it’s inescapable.

It does not appear to me that you have even humored my request. I’m actually not even confident you read my comment given your response doesn’t actually respond to it. I hope you will.

Those people doing the majority of the lumping, and it’s not even close, are the corporations themselves. The short hand exists. Machine learning is doing fine. Intentionally misinterpreting a message to incidentally defend the actions of the corporations doing the damage you are opposed to ain’t it.

You should really try and consider what it means for technology to be a cultural feature. Think, genuinely and critically, about what it means when someone tells you that you shouldn’t judge the ethics and values of their pursuits, because they are simply discovering “universal truths”.

And then, really make sure you ponder what it means when people say the purpose of a system is what it does. Why that might get brought up in discussions about wanton resource spending for venture capitalist hype.

No. I’m just not fear mongering things I do not understand.

Neither am I. When you’re defending whatabputism, it’s best you at least try to represent the arguments of the person you’re arguing with accurately.

False equivalence is a classic. Biotechnology is not a technology, for example, it’s billions of technologies informed, designed, and implemented, by humans, technology is a cultural feature.

Technology as this thing free from the ethics of its use is tech bro ancap cope to justify technological pursuits with empty ethical value. You can think “banning human progress in any way” is evil. But that would make you wildly uncritical of your own beliefs.

Feel free to take your arguments back to e/acc, where that level of convenience induced niavety is considered rhetorically valid.

So you’re using a different specific and niche technology (which directly benefits and exists because of) the technology that is the subject of critique, and acting like the subject technology behaves like yours?

“Google is doing a bad with z”

“z can’t be bad, I use y and it doesn’t have those problems that are already things that happened. In the past. Unchangeable by future actions.”

??

Plenty of smart people are focused on stupid ideas that are useless in general. Plenty of people who only appear smart also do the same.

Technology is a cultural creation, not a magic box outside of its circumstances. “The problem isn’t the technology, it’s the creators, users, and perpetuators” is tautological.

And, importantly, the purpose of a system is what it does.

In what sense does a small community working with open weight (note: rarely if ever open source) llm have any mitigating impact on the rampant carbon emissions for the sake of bullshit generators?

Honestly I was expecting far more downvotes. I posted the video with people like you in mind, who still can think critically are marks without the burden of misinformation and ideology. not being marks.

Ftfy

By the way, if you think you are not subject to ideology, I have several things to sell you.

For anyone else reading: everyone is subject to ideology. The moment you think you arent, that is when you are most trapped by it.

A study debunking the usage of llm in medicine has almost no impact on general machine learning applications in medicine. This is textbook concern trolling.

Correct, you shouldn’t use llm for this task.

Which is literally the point of the paper, because various techbros have been trying to claim that they are good at these tasks.

I mean I disagree about not sympathizing with folks somewhat trapped in a hostile software ecosystem, but surely “stand by your beliefs” is not unheard of.

Yeah I don’t agree with the osd being the only approach to being open source. Turns out people have differing opinions on that. You’re welcome.

It wasn’t a response to my comment because you didn’t respond to my comment. You said is proprietary. I point out that it’s not a terrible license. Then you resort to a sound bite non response.

You could have pointed out for example that ftl 3.2 and 4.1 are pretty shitty limitations to impose.

“Government hates what it can’t control”

tiktok

Lol. Look it sure was authoritarian the specific method used to ban tik tok. But you’re complaining about an authoritarian slap fight.

Ah. Of course. Something being open source doesn’t make it open source. It all makes sense now thank you for clarifying.

That also wasn’t technically a response to my comment, it was an ideological defense mechanism to avoid addressing the content of the license.

This license while not the most permitting does not appear to hide the code behind any proprietary shielding though.

It’s not just the user agent that fingerprints a user.

Hence a good most of the exact comment you responded to.

No it’s a security and fingerprinting tradeoff.

The more your browser acts to hide your behaviors and limit tracking, the more unique your fingerprint is. The most private browser setup is one which appears to be identical to all the other traffic in a non unique way, or noise. This definitionally lacks information for tracking.

Also security flaws and tracking exploits need to be constantly patched.

This is a fundamental tradeoff for privacy. Using more obscure browsers can (not always) then expose you to behavioral fingerprinting because they look different and react to web pages differently.