Post #2867119

@benjamineskola@hachyderm.io There is nobody else in this conversation; negating a claim imputes it to me. And it's pointless to assert an ought without any sense of the weight massed against it or any realistic program for change. Which you tacitly acknowledge because you're making exactly the same argument back to me — that there's no point asserting any prosocial or socialist angle to LLMs because of path dependency and their deeply embedded capitalist origins. Audre Lord, the master's tools, etc. There is absolutely nothing to stop a government somewhere deciding to train up a model on a more multicultural corpus. The technology is not inherently one thing or another. The implementations we've seen to date have come out of a particular corporate conjuncture but that governs their present not the future. As noted by Foucault — the great scholar of the otherwise — power is always exercised in struggle and remains constantly in danger of reversal. And the monetary expense of doing so is absolutely nothing compared to the difficulty of changing every aspect of social existence in which literacy implies class credibility and cultural capital. I do behaviour change for a living and it is a slow grind getting people to adopt even things that will benefit them. Anyway it's 3AM here so I'm going to leave you to it. Thanks for the chat.