Post #3898713

2026-07-18 00:09 UTC

@ori I see. I could share the original 1970s paper if it helps. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27106634 As you know this is an area of continued research and recognition. "Deciding that technology has inherent moral value outside of how people chose to use it makes it too easy to avoid reckoning with the social context of technology." This doesn't make sense to me or what I think is meant by neutrality. It is because technology is made in the context of society that it can't be neutral.

Replies (2)

@ori@hj.9fs.net 2026-07-18 00:13

For me, the essence of the neutrality is the wide range in how it can be used by society. To oversimpify, "if you're not careful, it can be used for anything, including harming the very things you were trying to protect. It doesn't have any care for the things you love built in -- that's the job of the people around it." CC: @OliviaVespera@spacey.space

Open ##3898712
@OliviaVespera@spacey.space 2026-07-18 00:12

@ori The example often given is, the atom bomb can only be created in a society that believes in its use. Another such society, constructed a different way, may not desire to make such a thing. I believe it is only through capitalist means and ends that LLMs could ever be created in such a way that they do such extensive harm. In a non-capitalist society, LLMs would have no value.

Open ##3898817