Post #1327337
2026-03-18 01:15 UTC
Replies (10)
-
@koronkebitch@types.pl 2026-03-18 03:19
@wilbowma ohhh a long one
-
@justinefrank@types.pl 2026-03-18 04:08
@wilbowma this put into words so many of the reasons why i have felt uncomfortable with many of the anti llm arguments
-
@david@types.pl 2026-03-18 04:27
@wilbowma as someone who typically avoids discussions of ethical frameworks because they feel incredibly incorrect to me in ways i can't really articulate, i liked the discussion of ethical frameworks here
-
@milo@types.pl 2026-03-18 05:08
@wilbowma thanks for putting this out, i especially agree with a lot of your conclusions at the end
-
@typeswitch@gamedev.lgbt 2026-03-18 07:26
@wilbowma That was an interesting read. I agree that power probably is the biggest issue. Though I think we also can't ignore the slop & related skills problem, even if it might be fixed eventually (which i doubt will happen soon). I believe that collectively lowering standards will lead to harm, even if we can't predict exactly how that harm will manifest. We have reason to believe that e.g. poorly understood software will have exploits, poorly researched writing will have bias, etc.
-
@aerynv2@tenforward.social 2026-03-18 14:10
@wilbowma fascinating read; I'm curious if your university ever assigns you to teach the accreditation-required tech ethics course, I think the students could benefit from your perspective. Do you think your framework applies differently to building the tools than using them? On the one hand, the "reasonable expectation based on reasonable knowledge" test is another level abstracted when the question is "will the likely users of the tool I'm building use it to cause harm?" (or, perhaps more in your framework, "is the availability of this tool likely to cause harm?"). As an example, I think it's morally wrong to build missiles for Northrup, even if you're not the one firing them, because "people die" is the whole point of the tool; I'm not sure how to define the category, but I think the devs at xAI building the Grok porn machine are arguably working in the same ethical category. It's maybe clearer in the AI industry power argument -- it's still human labour and expertise building these tools, and if it's *your* labour and expertise than you're part of the AI industry power machine. (Full disclosure, I spent two years working on an AI code-generation tool; I'm not proud of the work, and eventually "I am personally contributing to the devaluation of labour in my own industry" was a prominent part of why I quit.)
-
@unchartedworlds@scicomm.xyz 2026-03-18 20:12
@wilbowma Thanks for that - interesting!
-
@lil5@social.last.nl 2026-03-19 08:03
@wilbowma Good one on seeing the labour vs capital argument. But the rest is just a coping mechanism that paying/using ai is still okay. Blink twice if your manager forced you into this.
-
@ncf@types.pl 2026-03-20 10:52
@wilbowma I think this is a useful post and I mostly agree with your conclusions, although I am not a fan of the structure. I think you phrased every argument except your own in a way that is very easy to refute by making them about the technology (and not the AI industry), only presenting their "real" versions in the section about power. But this is what (most) people really mean by these arguments, and I think it sounds a bit disingenuous to pretend otherwise. I also have other complaints that were already raised here, but overall thank you for writing this.
-
@chrisamaphone@hci.social 2026-03-20 11:45
@wilbowma i think a big thing you're missing about the "intellectual property" arguments is the more compelling ones are about nonconsensual enclosure and devaluation of human creative labor, not about protecting legal copyright in a vacuum