For those unaware, Linus Torvalds this year has deeply cast his lot with the hyperscale LLMs for development of Linux code, dismissing arguments that this is an abdication of responsibility over that code base.
For those unaware, Linus Torvalds this year has deeply cast his lot with the hyperscale LLMs for development of Linux code, dismissing arguments that this is an abdication of responsibility over that code base.
You should read up on thr Luddites, because you’re mischaracterising them. They weren’t anti technology, they were anti capitalist.
IMO, this is the think Linus is missing - the shit has massive political implications in multiple dimensions (it’s being built by fascists and capitalists bent on control of broader business, government, and social systems) and he’s just treating it as if it’s as politically agnostic as a screwdriver.
Yes, though it goes further than that even if you ignore the politics.
Linus is undoubtedly talking about when an LLM is used in a very specific way in his imagination where it’s helping a competent programmer spot some things they might have missed, but the programmer is still diligent and professional and genuinely does take responsibility for ensuring the quality of their commits. Where the delusion comes in is grossly overestimating how many people are actually like that outside of his inner circle of world-level experts. What’s happening in all the other open-source projects is a flood of low quality garbage PRs from meat proxies.
It may be that Linus Torvalds has the political literacy of a doorstop.
He’s a rich, middle-aged, white man from the Nordics.
As a white man from the Nordics, my observation is that his particular demographic doesn’t tend to care much. They have theirs.
Possibly. It would be sad and maybe a little surprising (but not that much). I’ve certainly never seen anything that contradicts that…
I am familiar with their actual history, but the colloquialism has taken on its own life just as the term “nimrod” no longer describes the famous hunter of that name but rather a bumbling buffoon.
As regards the politics of it, we can split these hairs all day. Where do we draw the line between a tool and a weapon? Which tools are acceptable to use and in what ways?
That AI is being used as a political bludgeon is not the fault of AI any more than gunshot wounds are the direct fault of the gun; they are tools being used for particular aims. I consider both equally dangerous in the right (wrong) hands, but by that same token a gun can be used to feed a family when used for hunting just as AI has provided monetary benefits to regular working people.
A tool cannot in and of itself be political. Its use and application absolutely can.
ETA: Upon re-reading I see that my “nimrod” comparison can read as an insult. I meant it more in how Bugs Bunny altered the colloquial meaning. I was not trying to be disparaging in any way and apologize if I offended.
elmer fudd isn’t a bumbling buffoon.
you’d seem like a bumbling buffoon around this too. i mean c’mon.
Not trying to kink shame, but furry is the opposite of a turn on for me.
You do you, though.
First of all how dare you
I disagree, and I’m not alone: https://gomakethings.com/articles/all-tech-is-political/
I wouldn’t dare do the disservice of judging the article (in full) purely on title, but “technology” includes the hammer, the wheel, and all the way around to sticks and fire.
Again, I am willing to debate the ethics of use of any given technology all day as that is absolutely a conversation worth having, especially with some technologies like spy satellites and permanently-connected IOT devices alongside LLMs.
But technology itself isn’t inherently political.
Now I’m clicking the link.
Edit: Upon reading, I fully take their point, but my own lens of it is more that everything is within the realm of politics rather than innately political itself. Tractors aren’t inherently political, but John Deere managed to make them so. Actors using, to my earlier point, any technology as a lever for politics doesn’t inherently make that technology political.
I appreciate that viewpoint immensely however, even though I don’t fully align with it myself.
I think you’re assigning too much free will to people and societies. If you take the Marxist perspective that technology creates its own social infrastructure - who owns what, who does what, who gets the benefits, who receives power and who is disposessed - then technology can be seen as inherently political. If and when a technology appears, that reshapes society in ways that significantly change the benefits distribution of society’s labour, the distinction between the inert technology itself and its effects on society becomes an academic discussion. Even if this technology can only reshape society when that society exists and is combined with the technology. So rather than focusing on the academic distinction, I think people would care more about focusing on the social effects, which are political, and whether there are opportunities to make these effects benefit them (us).
I think we are ultimately in agreement with a subtly different perspective on things.
Nothing is inherently political, but everything is ultimately within the realm of politics. Land itself isn’t political until people draw lines on it and start making claims.
Inert, lifeless things are not themselves inherently political. Their uses and the people who decide such make them so.
DRM is inherently political. Flock cameras are inherently political. AI data centers are inherently political. Many tools and technologies are inherently political.
DRM is a tool to protect IP and can (though often does not) protect the individual who created the IP.
Flock cameras are really just cameras that are utilizing other tools to track people. The company using them in that way are the political ones. The tool being used as it is just happens to be the point of contention.
Data centers weren’t really a (Big) problem til they started being used for AI. So again, it is the use case rather than the tool itself.
I want to be abundantly clear that I am not actually arguing for any of these things as i think Flock et al should be slow-roasted one inch at a time just as a starter and our warm-up round for what happens to Meta and Google and Palantir and so on.
The semantic/pedantic part of me just kicks against blanket statements that, when analyzed, tend to be on shakier ground than it first appeared.
How about grok? Apolitical?
Hilariously yes. The fact that primarily Nazis feed it and warp its data and output continuously to suit their needs is what makes it a political tool rather than being innately political.
I will absolutely die on this hill.
What possible beneficial use can it have? Teaching rational humans like you and me how to recognize dog whistle bullshit and how to deal with it properly - up to and including RUD and permanent disposal.
obligatory Fuck John Deere
Obviously there is a spectrum between sewing needles and nuclear weapons… But I think it’s clear that even e.g. stone axes have had meaningful impacts on the structure of society and also on politics as a subset of that (e.g. their use had implications for power relationships, perhaps as a weapon, perhaps as a way to increase socioeconomic status, etc.)
Get out of here with your nuanced takes and reading entire articles!
This is Lemmy good sir, and we crucify people based on general vibes and extreme positions!
Off to the downvotes!
My bad, I’ll go punch a libertarian to make up for it now.
Oh shit, I think that was a Lemmy user who went so far left they Pac-Man’d their way to the lib right!
Legalize nuclear bombs
legalize the weed grenade
If a tool cannot in and off itself be political then why has Apple removed the “neutral tool” of ice block?
Because Apple is a political entity and have their own agenda.
Any tracking tool of any description can be used for personal safety or nefarious means.
Rocks aren’t political, but they can still be used to split somebody’s skull open as easily as they can be used to drive a nail. They’re tools, and the hands that use them determine their politics. That still doesn’t make the tool inherently political.
If you cannot tell the difference between a rock and ice block I’m not sure what to tell you.
There is no such thing as, “just a tool”, just as there is no topic that cannot be made political.
Stop being a willfully ignorant fuckface.
Sure thing, spanky…
You’ve already been linked to valid ideas. Ignore them to everyones’ detriment.
Which makes it about as politically agnostic as a computer. Technology doesn’t have morality.
I don’t know automated turrets that target children in Gaza sounds pretty immoral. I could say the baby skull seeking bullets them selves aren’t nessisarly immoral but its the use of said bullets that makes them evil, but I don’t see the need to make a distinction.
Algorithms that face book used for no reason other than to make you feel depressed to sell more ads feels pretty immoral too. Systems and tools developed to perpetuate slavery, is another one.
There’s so much technology that was explicitly made for evil intent that serves no purpose outside of its original intent, where I feel I can blanketly call it immoral.
I could nitpick most of these, but it seems we don’t actually disagree here since if an “immoral” technology were to get a morally good or neutral use it’d suddenly be moral under your definition.
My point was some technologies are made in such a way that they can only be immoral, or was made in a way where the only use from said technology is to do as much damage as possible. I am not sure we are on the same page.
Maybe in 1000 years we will find a use for all the land mines that are in the ground after wars. Its not the mines themselves that are immoral, its the people that lay the mines that are evil. We should leave the mines because they might serve a valueable purpose later and suddenly start saving lives. Despite the fact that mines are known as the most destructive vindictive thing you can do to acivilian population. They are only made to harm people, and often innocent people generations later long detatched from the original conflict.
If there was a machine that launched baby corpses at our targets, and required the blood of virgins to run and was only used to psychologically traumatize anyone who seen it, would my point be more clear? I could argue that sure maybe the machine isn’t technically immoral if you don’t run it. But we all know why the machine was made for, and I don’t see any reason to try to make a distinction between who is immoral when it seems pretty straight forward.
Sorry I’m one of those insufferable well aclhuuually guys we are kind of on the same page and arguing over words and how to use them when I can barely spell.
You know what that’s a good point. I guess there are technologies with no plausible non-evil purpose (thinking of torture implements and the like here).
Technology use does though, and technology without use is… Nothing?
I don’t know, computers are pretty neat as long as you don’t turn them on.
Sure, but that means that ultimately use is what decides morality, so who developed a certain product or technology doesn’t matter for using it.
Who developed it: no, probably not that much. Who is selling it/pushing it, absolutely. And users also inherently interact with those social and political structures, e.g. through working within a capitalist organisation (as most of us do), and influencing it’s evolution (as most of us do, though often unintentionally)
But products have, and in our society, can we separate technology from products?
No they don’t? Climate concerns aside, how is that even supposed to work?