| ▲ | DonaldPShimoda 4 hours ago |
| Two things are important to me: 1. All modern LLMs are (in my eyes) inherently morally problematic. They were trained on stolen information, and where they didn't break the law they corrupted social contracts. Their manner of operation is also problematic: disadvantaged communities are being exploited at a rapidly increasing disproportionate rate in the name of "more compute". 2. I am fundamentally disinterested in the productivity mindset that LLMs lean into. I don't care to "produce more"; the value of my work does not lie in the amount of money that can be gotten in exchange for it. This is an easier position to hold as someone who does not hold a typical corporate job, but even if I did I would still resist because an increase in my output would not correlate to an increase in my salary. At the root of it all is people. I care about people (their existence, their happiness, my connections to them, their connections to each other), and any use of LLMs is (in my mind) anti-people, so I want no part of it. |
|
| ▲ | murderfs 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| > 1. All modern LLMs are (in my eyes) inherently morally problematic. They were trained on stolen information, and where they didn't break the law they corrupted social contracts. It's bizarre to me that over what feels like less than a year, enforcement of intellectual property and copyright laws has become the most important moral principle. Suddenly, it's your moral duty to enforce Disney's trademark of Mickey Mouse. I reject this moral framing completely. Information wants to be free! |
| |
| ▲ | satvikpendem 30 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | Much longer than a year. First time I recall was when Stable Diffusion dropped, on HN everyone was suddenly a copyright hawk. | |
| ▲ | nl 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I agree with this. Further: > They were trained on stolen information, and where they didn't break the law they corrupted social contracts. I completely reject this framing. Learning on something has always been part of the social contract (public libraries are a great example). | |
| ▲ | DonaldPShimoda 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | On the one hand, I agree with you about, e.g., Disney. I think the way they have deliberately manipulated the formation of modern copyright law for their purposes is also problematic. But I do care about, for example, a recently published author, or someone who posts their paintings on social media. Regardless of where the law stands in each particular case, I think it's repugnant that statistical models were trained on these inputs with the intent of offering the ability to produce similar outputs without any payment or even attribution to the original artist. > Information wants to be free! If someone chooses to make their information free, then so it may be, but the issue at hand is very obviously not about the use of, e.g., copyleft materials. The AI companies knowingly chose to take material that they knew they should not have and used it to make their copycat machines, building those machines in such a way that those responsible can cower behind the letter of the law to defile its spirit. | | |
| ▲ | murderfs an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | > But I do care about, for example, a recently published author, or someone who posts their paintings on social media. Regardless of where the law stands in each particular case, I think it's repugnant that statistical models were trained on these inputs with the intent of offering the ability to produce similar outputs without any payment or even attribution to the original artist. I have somewhat more sympathy for individuals, but I disagree with the entire system itself. Suppose an aspiring artist learns from someone's work, and I commission them to produce similar output to the original without attribution. Was the act of them learning from the work "repugnant"? > If someone chooses to make their information free, then so it may be, but the issue at hand is very obviously not about the use of, e.g., copyleft materials. The AI companies knowingly chose to take material that they knew they should not have and used it to make their copycat machines, building those machines in such a way that those responsible can cower behind the letter of the law to defile its spirit. I don't agree that they shouldn't have done it. I disagree with the letter and the spirit of the law. | |
| ▲ | Viliam1234 an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Instead of some reasonable time limit such as 14 years, we get big corporations that hoard copyright effectively for eternity, and big corporations that violate copyright instantly. It's the little guy whose work is copied (used to train models that create copies on demand) immediately, but who is prosecuted when he pirates someone else's work. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | curious_cat_163 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > At the root of it all is people. I care about people (their existence, their happiness, my connections to them, their connections to each other) 100% agree. That's what it is all about. That, and our time. > and any use of LLMs is (in my mind) anti-people Hard disagree. A lot of good can be done for the people with this tech. Blanket rejection of an entire category of technology has not worked out well for the disadvantaged communities in the past. We have plenty of history. |
| |
| ▲ | DonaldPShimoda 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Maybe "any" was too strong, but I would still say most uses of LLMs are anti-people. I think about how disappointing it is when a new project makes it to the front page of HN and I click through and it's just... vibe-coded slop. Looks pretty at first, but it's clear that there isn't really much human underneath. Lots of obvious interface problems or just a distinct lack of a personal touch. It's empty, and it makes me sad. Or even not in software, I think of all the people who have been so quick to offload their thought processes to a statistical model. What do you mean you don't know what you want to eat at this restaurant so you asked Claude and got recommended something that isn't even on the menu? And that's just individual stuff. I am genuinely fearful of the integration of AI into, say, the legal and judicial processes, or governance, or whatever else. People give the models wayyyy too much credibility considering they (the models) cannot give an accurate confidence interval for their results, and I think it's going to make things much worse for disadvantaged communities to a degree that the communities will not be able to overcome by using the technologies themselves. | | |
|
|
| ▲ | nonethewiser 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| >1. All modern LLMs are (in my eyes) inherently morally problematic. Yes, I think this is a key point and I'm not surprised to hear it. It's a fundamental problem with AI. It's not something that will disappear as it becomes more useful or makes less mistakes. How do you feel about a dependency that was written by AI? It seems like things will get progressively harder and harder to maintain a real boundary, outside of just writing everything yourself. And perhaps hosting. |
| |
| ▲ | DonaldPShimoda 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Yeah, I think it's infeasible to remain in software development while maintaining a 100% "I refuse to touch anything that has a nonzero level of LLM input" for that reason. For the time being, I'm content to simply not use it myself. I don't think it's reasonable for me to foist my morals onto those around me, in the same way that my very close vegan friend still talks to me when I order a whole milk latte. I don't think there's a way to exist in modern society without incurring some degree of (likely indirect) immorality, so it's all about setting boundaries for myself where I can and accepting where I end up. |
|
|
| ▲ | brandonmenc an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > I would still resist because an increase in my output would not correlate to an increase in my salary It will correlate to you still having a job. "Resisting" is like refusing to use a shovel at your ditch-digging job. |
| |
| ▲ | skydhash an hour ago | parent [-] | | > "Resisting" is like refusing to use a shovel at your ditch-digging job If they come to me with a cartoon-like contraception that comes straight from Acme, you can understand how reluctant I am to not be blown up like Coyote. |
|
|
| ▲ | Bitsc 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| "but even if I did I would still resist because an increase in my output would not correlate to an increase in my salary." Then you simply would be let go. |
| |
| ▲ | DonaldPShimoda 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | I said "resist", not "absolutely refuse". There are limits where one's livelihood is concerned. I am fortunate to be in a place where I can still decide for myself. But, of course, this is also part of the immorality of the AI industry. |
|
|
| ▲ | Johanx64 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| > the value of my work does not lie in the amount of money that can be gotten in exchange for it. What do you think money is? It's a rough proxy approximation for value.
So yes, the amount of money you can get for your work is rough approximation of its value. You can also have a precious pet rock that you personally hold very dear and well "valueable" - but valuable to nobody but you only. So realistically it has zero value to everyone else. If you don't care about creating value, you don't care about people. As, ultimately, it costs money to care for people, and if you don't have it - all you have are prayers and best wishes, and you functionally can't help anyone. |
| |
| ▲ | DonaldPShimoda 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | > What do you think money is? It's a rough proxy approximation for value. Money is an abstraction, not an approximation. There is not of necessity any real basis for any price that has ever been attached to any product or service, ever. Money is an artificial mechanism by which we exchange debt owed by the issuing state that itself also has no real basis. > If you don't care about creating value, you don't care about people. On this we agree, but, of course, my point was that when I say "value" I don't mean monetary value. A person's value is intangible, and the value of their works (whatever those may be) is derived entirely from the relationship formed between the artist and their context and the connection from this relationship to whoever wishes to partake of the art. > As, ultimately, it costs money to care for people, and if you don't have it - all you have are prayers and best wishes, and you functionally can't help anyone. What a woefully capitalistic perspective. I wish the best of luck to you and your shareholders. |
|
