• AVincentInSpace@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    6 hours ago

    What then, O wise one, must we understand before we can criticize LLMs for the slop machines they would still be even if we eliminated the myriad ethical problems with how they’re currently deployed?

    • Fawkes@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      59 minutes ago

      Being a sarcastic ass does nothing to refute my point. I don’t have to be an oracle to look back at history and see 100% of technologies finding an eventual use. I don’t know how the problems will be solved, and I don’t need to know what their uses will be in order for the trend that has continued for 1,500 years of recorded history to most likely be true.

      You, on the other hand, have to somehow show that THIS technology is so wildly unique that none of the examples from the last 1,500 years are informative.

      Edit: sorry, got some things mixed up in my brain. Just because you can’t identify a use for a technology doesn’t mean a technology is bad. Unless you are personally familiar with every single technology, profession, and process on the entire planet, and those that will be invented in the future, and can act as the ultimate arbiter of what is and isn’t useful. Alcohol is very harmful. But also good at sterilisation. X-rays are very harmful, but also good at medical imaging. Gunpowder is very harmful, but also makes pretty fireworks.