You both have a point, but I’ve seen people make excuses such as the fact that ethically produced chocolate isn’t as cheap as non-ethically produced chocolate, which could be bought everyday. But why buy and eat chocolate everyday?
It is the same thing with factory farming; people now expect to eat more meat than people had, and advertising says to men that you’re as masculine as the amount of meat you eat.
The influence of hyperconsumerism is horrible, it justifies luxury at the expense of ethics as a necessity.
The ones at the top have the worst case of luxury addiction.
what is with the high school level takes today? the system is bad, people exist in the system, people need to remain sane, people can indulge in a bit of badness sometimes in order to remain sane without being labeled as bad. that’s the baseline. that’s where the discussion should start. the response to “there is no ethical consumption under capitalism” should not be to just consume everything.
i have cheap clothes that are likely cheap because of unethical practices. same with my phone, same with my food. the difference between all those and an llm is that i need all of those things to exist in polite society. i do not need an llm.
some people’s situation is such that they need a car. that’s fine. they do not need an llm. some people have businesses that can only reach enough customers through social media. that’s fine. they do not need an llm.
llms are the civet coffee of the digital world. expensive, bad for the environment in more ways than you think, highly unethical, nothing special, and completely unnecessary. nobody needs coffee, but some people “need” coffee. but nobody needs civet coffee. like nobody needs an llm.
the system is bad, people exist in the system, people need to remain sane, people can indulge in a bit of badness sometimes in order to remain sane without being labeled as bad
What do you mean? What I’m getting is that people must do bad things to remain sane in a bad system but they have to do it in small doses so they don’t be labeled as a bad person? Sorry, this part is just unclear to me.
I guess what I can get from that, is that some people think huge doses of it are normalised, it’s what they’re used to. In a bad society, unethically produced chocolate is cheap, advertising says—and omitting the fact it is unethically produced—it will make you feel good, from childhood to adulthood.
And since people dislike change, being confronted with the fact that something that feels good is actually bad results in cognitive dissonance. Eating chocolate daily something they’re used to, and even if an ethical option exists, if they can only afford it once in every 3 days, they are unwilling to change even if they must support slavery.
When people do boycotts what tends to happen is that they find out that they don’t in fact, need something that is basically a luxury to that degree. It was just something they are used to.
People can dislike boomers and privileged people for the same thing. I mean, if you think you are allowed to criticise them, don’t you think the ones below you also have the right to criticise you? Because unfortunately, I am one of the people whose suffering westerners find acceptable as long as it brings them convenience. Like CEOs with their employees, now that I think of it.
Same thing with clothes, phones and cars. There are people who make fun of others for being diligent with the 20-80 rule because apparently normal people should replace phones every 2 years. Seeing comments like that really shocked me because I am not used to seeing such an attitude of luxury. Since I don’t edit videos or play demanding games, when my battery fails me every 3 years I would replace my battery. Hearing people buy clothes every month for a total of 12 per year also somewhat shocked me, because in 5 years that’s already 60 pieces of clothing. And it is shocking to see American traffic because their cars are big AF.
not must. i mean that we should not judge people for acting how the system wants them to. being a conscious consumer is good, but you’re not automatically a bad person if you splurge occasionally.
what i take issue with is the “double standards” comment, which essentially says “if you don’t use llms but you own a phone/commute by car/eat meat/whatever, you’re a hypocrite”. it ignores the context in which people exist.
i will absolutely call people out for replacing their phone every two years or shopping on shein, but i will not judge them for simply owning a car. some places have shitty infrastructure.
likewise, i will not judge someone who just wants a taste of luxury now and then, like taking a fancy vacation once in a while. but i will judge the hell out of them if the destination is dubai.
point being, people need to be able to treat themselves occasionally without being shamed. shame is reserved for those who do it all the time, especially when knowing the cost.
llms are a new luxury. i will not judge people for trying them out. i will, however, explain the real cost. if they persist after that, they will be shamed.
You both have a point, but I’ve seen people make excuses such as the fact that ethically produced chocolate isn’t as cheap as non-ethically produced chocolate, which could be bought everyday. But why buy and eat chocolate everyday?
It is the same thing with factory farming; people now expect to eat more meat than people had, and advertising says to men that you’re as masculine as the amount of meat you eat.
The influence of hyperconsumerism is horrible, it justifies luxury at the expense of ethics as a necessity.
The ones at the top have the worst case of luxury addiction.
what is with the high school level takes today? the system is bad, people exist in the system, people need to remain sane, people can indulge in a bit of badness sometimes in order to remain sane without being labeled as bad. that’s the baseline. that’s where the discussion should start. the response to “there is no ethical consumption under capitalism” should not be to just consume everything.
i have cheap clothes that are likely cheap because of unethical practices. same with my phone, same with my food. the difference between all those and an llm is that i need all of those things to exist in polite society. i do not need an llm.
some people’s situation is such that they need a car. that’s fine. they do not need an llm. some people have businesses that can only reach enough customers through social media. that’s fine. they do not need an llm.
llms are the civet coffee of the digital world. expensive, bad for the environment in more ways than you think, highly unethical, nothing special, and completely unnecessary. nobody needs coffee, but some people “need” coffee. but nobody needs civet coffee. like nobody needs an llm.
What do you mean? What I’m getting is that people must do bad things to remain sane in a bad system but they have to do it in small doses so they don’t be labeled as a bad person? Sorry, this part is just unclear to me.
I guess what I can get from that, is that some people think huge doses of it are normalised, it’s what they’re used to. In a bad society, unethically produced chocolate is cheap, advertising says—and omitting the fact it is unethically produced—it will make you feel good, from childhood to adulthood.
And since people dislike change, being confronted with the fact that something that feels good is actually bad results in cognitive dissonance. Eating chocolate daily something they’re used to, and even if an ethical option exists, if they can only afford it once in every 3 days, they are unwilling to change even if they must support slavery.
When people do boycotts what tends to happen is that they find out that they don’t in fact, need something that is basically a luxury to that degree. It was just something they are used to.
People can dislike boomers and privileged people for the same thing. I mean, if you think you are allowed to criticise them, don’t you think the ones below you also have the right to criticise you? Because unfortunately, I am one of the people whose suffering westerners find acceptable as long as it brings them convenience. Like CEOs with their employees, now that I think of it.
Same thing with clothes, phones and cars. There are people who make fun of others for being diligent with the 20-80 rule because apparently normal people should replace phones every 2 years. Seeing comments like that really shocked me because I am not used to seeing such an attitude of luxury. Since I don’t edit videos or play demanding games, when my battery fails me every 3 years I would replace my battery. Hearing people buy clothes every month for a total of 12 per year also somewhat shocked me, because in 5 years that’s already 60 pieces of clothing. And it is shocking to see American traffic because their cars are big AF.
not must. i mean that we should not judge people for acting how the system wants them to. being a conscious consumer is good, but you’re not automatically a bad person if you splurge occasionally.
what i take issue with is the “double standards” comment, which essentially says “if you don’t use llms but you own a phone/commute by car/eat meat/whatever, you’re a hypocrite”. it ignores the context in which people exist.
i will absolutely call people out for replacing their phone every two years or shopping on shein, but i will not judge them for simply owning a car. some places have shitty infrastructure.
likewise, i will not judge someone who just wants a taste of luxury now and then, like taking a fancy vacation once in a while. but i will judge the hell out of them if the destination is dubai.
point being, people need to be able to treat themselves occasionally without being shamed. shame is reserved for those who do it all the time, especially when knowing the cost.
llms are a new luxury. i will not judge people for trying them out. i will, however, explain the real cost. if they persist after that, they will be shamed.