Kwaze Kwaze

@da_667@infosec.exchange [Final straw was: Unsightly environment]

@alienghic@timeloop.cafe @jonny@neuromatch.social They'll just scream something about local models and continue not really understanding how all this works

RE: @Athena@chaosfem.tw

What's extra funny is these clowns will turn around and accuse people opposed to this shit of sticking their heads in the sand

The amount of legwork clowns put into making "tools" to effectively turn LLMs into the world's most tedious and psychosis-inducing UI is maddening.

The same clowns on my team that are putting in this legwork haven't updated their tool's GUI (which I already avoided like the plague) with basic fucking behavior like being able to sort displayed tables. This shit of theirs has been around for years at this point.

Another reason "AI" gets away with so much lying and overstatement flooding of the zone.

Every clown extruding 20,000 lines of pirated syntax-vomit can say off the cuff the code is of quality and show it passes unit tests that don't really test anything.

Challenging these claims requires a mountain of effort most people just don't have. In professional environments efforts to debunk are further confounded by belief in the original claim!

@chloechloechloe@musician.social @sharpcheddargoblin@reclusive.blog @PallasRiot@social.treehouse.systems That's being fair. It's really just a general trend across the tech-libertarian internet, not specific to FOSS. It's less pronounced in 2026 now that it's culminated in LLMs but there's absolutely a culture that lionizes individuals giving work out for free and demonizes their attempts to monetize. That attitude is present in a lot of LLM discussions as well - accusations of being pretentious, gate keepy, or scared of losing money (jobs).

@sharpcheddargoblin@reclusive.blog Lol "Powered by advanced machine-learning systems" Why won't they say what base model their shitty RAG wrapper is sitting on top of??

@sharpcheddargoblin@reclusive.blog @PallasRiot@social.treehouse.systems The propaganda that pretends socialism is just state capitalism and that the wealthy truly earned their wealth runs deep. People, especially software people into FOSS, are primed to buy into the propagandist idea that socialism means people aren't actually entitled to compensation for their labor. The LLM slots in nicely to this take on economics since its whole conceit rests on entitlement to the uncompensated and unattributed labor of others.

@kallisti @mhoye Interrogating how someone else treats something they have anthropomorphized isn't anthropomorphizing, no.

@munin@infosec.exchange Also a nonzero probability they still insist we try to fix their car using even more pudding given the level of brain worms we're currently dealing with.

RE: @techcrunch@flipboard.com

Exxon believes oil can make Earth more beautiful, not cause mass extinction

It'd be so awesome if bsky stayed broken

Like all who ungracefully age, members of the genX and boomer cohorts that live for their new computer toys still think they're hip, with it, and know best.

Which is why they don't suffer any dissonance when they try to tell the actual youth of today they know best and compare them to their own half-remembered experiences with the olds.

#NoAI

@buckfiftyseven @ai6yr @tante "There is literally no difference between you and a corporate product -- wait why are you booing me"

@nf3xn every single time one of these people makes some extraordinary claim that the model "must have understood", closer inspection always reveals a misleading amount of human input than initially let on or the example was actually living somewhere on an obscure server one of their filthy bots tried to DDoS looking for data to steal. But each claim takes more time to debunk than it does for yet another dev to get one shot by everyone's favorite cognitive hazard

@budududuroiu When "you cannot disentangle the LLM from capital" is the topic I'm not going to just not tell you you're wrong. Just like you didn't hesitate to tell the original tooter you thought he was wrong. This implementation of ML only arises and gains the traction it does in a capitalist environment where consent, credit, and epistemic validity are secondary to "velocity" and output. You can block me for telling me you're wrong but don't then try and insist there's an echo chamber.

@budududuroiu You realize the theft being discussed here is distributed and impacting all persons, correct?Hyperfocusing on a specific immaterial theft against an exploitive publishing system to discount the more egregious harms is myopic. It's a bizarre crusade you're on to insist we must embrace fascist corporate products to fight corporate power. You can go torrent some paywalled textbooks from an exploitive publisher right now (without an LLM) and not support a fascist tech project.

@budududuroiu @maxleibman Yeah you're not going to convince me that paying rent to American companies (distillation doesn't solve this it just creates another middle man) for access to the theft engine is the answer to capitalism.

@budududuroiu @maxleibman

What would a non-exploitative baseline for an LLM look like?

I don't know how you make a plagiarism machine not a plagiarism machine and I'm not interested in answering that question as I've no interest in automating plagiarism.

@budududuroiu @maxleibman Those "more efficient" models don't avoid any of the serious epistemic issues with these systems and to my knowledge are largely focused on distillation of larger models which is ultimately akin to ethics laundering. The energy efficiency is but one of the major issues here. The entire conceit behind large models is also, in general, exploitative. The more appropriate application of your angle to that analogy is that LLMs are DDT, the transformer is the pesticide.

@budududuroiu @maxleibman Like with DDT we have documented evidence of the harms caused by the LLM industrial complex. We know the negative externalities. Many of us experience them first hand. The only way this "purity culture" angle makes sense is if you think the negative externalities don't exist or aren't that serious in which case I don't really know if we actually share any values which is a completely different issue from "purity culture".

@budududuroiu @maxleibman Okay, take LLMs out of the equation so we don't have whatever baggage we have about them hanging around. Is the use of DDT problematic? It also "works" for its purpose. But it has serious issues. If it is "problematic", does that mean we're engaging in purity culture over which pesticides are okay and which aren't? If it's not problematic what would you call it?

@davidrevoy @kimcrawley Yeah man, I know. The "well-meaning individuals" part was referring to you! I ain't accusing you of malignance. Try this: Imagine a world where half the critical articles about bitcoin had the author ending with "now don't get me wrong I'm not actually opposed to all crypto. SHA-256 and SSH are actually super useful technologies". A little weird, right?

@davidrevoy @kimcrawley The question to ask is who are you trying to appeal to when you say you're "not against all AI"? Are you worried someone reading post-2023 is going to somehow think you're referring to some predictive algorithm in use in hospitals 2016? Anyone with even a vague knowledge of AI is going to know you're not, anyone that doesn't isn't going to even know to think that as "AI" to them means the shit we're all disparaging!

@davidrevoy @kimcrawley David, the conflation of working, innocuous computational methods such as what you describe here with the exploitive and theft-based methods of the last few years was intentional. The use of this conflation to illicit otherwise well-meaning individuals to equivocate over "good" and "bad" AI is a well-known tactic for bogging down criticism. It's not exactly just two people having a difference in definitions.

@talexb@fosstodon.org Just not reviewing anything (read: glancing and saying "looks good") is how any of these people are able to say with a straight face this stuff makes them faster.