| ▲ | noslenwerdna 4 hours ago | ||||||||||||||||||||||
This is a very close minded definition of evil. What is the threshold of environmental impact before something is evil and its use indefensible? What level of copyright violation will send us to hell? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | Diogenesian 4 hours ago | parent [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||
I didn't give a definition of evil, so "close-minded definition" is just a dishonest way of expressing that you subjectively disagree with me. Likewise with trying to make me judge an objective threshold for pollution. It really should be that any polluter needs to morally justify their actions. I find "mostly illusory productivity improvements in white-collar employment" to be an especially indefensible reason for firing up new natural gas generators. Let alone the real motivation being "billionaires want more money." The level of pollution from training and deploying generative AI is simply evil. And your last question is just pure cynicism. The real sin you're committing here is contemptuously dismissing ethical concerns out of hand. I assume you use LLMs. I don't. It truly seems like using LLMs makes people stupider and more unethical. Some cognitive work should not be outsourced, especially not to a mindless stochastic parrot. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||