Post #2867117

2026-02-21 12:14 UTC

@benjamineskola@hachyderm.io You wrote 'LLMs aren’t a socialist solution in the slightest,' negating something I never claimed, and that's putting words in my mouth. Yet again an 'if' that concedes my point only to argue things *should* be otherwise. Yes they should, but they are not anywhere near close to being that way. You're missing something important in your critique of LLMs: there are thousands of them, some are open source, many will run on your own hardware, and many can be prompted regarding tone and style. There is nothing inherently American or even capitalist about GPT or LLMs per se. The tech can be used in prosocial and pro-socialist ways, on multiple sides of struggle.

Replies (1)

@benjamineskola@hachyderm.io 2026-02-21 12:26

@onekind@beige.party OK, a few things: first, no, that's not putting words in your mouth. I am asserting that, if someone thought LLMs are compatible with socialism, they'd be wrong. (As it stands in the present moment.) As for the 'things should be otherwise', well, yes. We are socialists; the whole point is that we want things to be otherwise. I don't think it makes sense to draw some lines and insist that this particular thing can't be changed, when we're already demanding fundamental changes in economic and social arrangements. As for the point about 'open-source' LLMs: that doesn't actually avoid the problem. They aren't actually open-source, and training the weights requires the same intensive process as is done for the closed-source LLMs. Nobody can do that without millions of dollars to burn, and the existing ones all depend on the training done by those same corporations. Better/fuller explanation: https://hachyderm.io/@david_chisnall@infosec.exchange/116107854327461213 I do agree that in a socialist society the technology itself could potentially exist and be used without contradiction. But in the real world, in the present, the only possible usage of LLMs entail that dependency on capital.

Open ##2867118