Post #1416182

2026-04-11 19:46 UTC

@realn2s @glyph you can absolutely reject something without using it and I said as much in the post. The point isn’t that rejection requires use but that without use, your view of how it behaves in practice is second-hand.

Replies (1)

@realn2s@infosec.exchange 2026-04-11 22:44

@mitsuhiko @glyph My point is that how "AI" behaves in practice is irrelevant. If you oppose eating animal products because of the cruelty involved in the production you don't need to have practiced eating meat. If you oppose taking drugs because of the health implications, you don't need to have practiced taking drugs. And if you criticise LLMs/"AI" because of their conceptual errors, unethical data collection, exploitative training, impact on the environment and society, and the surveillance capitalism, no amount of usage will change that. The opposite, with personal usage you enter the realm of anecdotes, "it works for me". You risk entering a "circle of addiction". "It still has glitches but the next model will fix it" I fear that similar to asbestos we will suffer the negative effects of "ai" for decades

Open ##1416183