you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 4 points 3 hours ago (16 children)

Fuck.

Let’s hope for a slop-free fork or the old man changing his mind on this bullshit.

  • source
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] [S] -1 points 2 hours ago (13 children)
  • [–] 5 points 2 hours ago* (6 children)

    This is the kind of arguments people made against the free-software movement in the first place. That it's somehow more mature to not care about consequences of what we do and how we do it

    I think it's exactly the other way around

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] [S] -4 points 1 hour ago* (5 children)

    The difference is that free-software movement is about rolling up your sleeves and actually making alternatives as opposed to throwing a tantrum like spoiled children which is what you all are. You lot are just a modern day iteration of Luddites who were raging against the technology as opposed to social relations that resulted in the technology being used in abusive ways. And lacking basic understanding of the problem you are doomed to fail the same way as your predecessors.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 34 minutes ago (2 children)

    They were not "against technology", that was the propaganda of the ruling class which still gets repeated today. The Luddites were put down by militarily and violently killed. They didn't fail because they weren't publicly supported (they were wildly popular) or weren't against the social relations (they very much were)

    Building frontier AI models cost billions of dollars in capital. Any solution involves raising that kind of money, the forces of the money will be put right back against you. It's also just as likely to be banned if it's seen as a big enough threat.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] [S] 0 points 21 minutes ago (1 child)

    The Luddites were skilled artisans, who saw a few capitalists growing rich by introducing machinery to destroy their guilds. So, they set to work to smash the machines thinking that if they could destroy the technology, their artisanal guilds would be saved. And they were predictably crushed by state violence. The machines prevailed because the ruling class wanted to cut costs and increase profits. The same is true today, and those who want to stop these systems from being put into production are merely attacking the symptoms of the underlying material relations.

    Also, you're simply confusing the fact that the US is in a bubble with what it takes to develop new technology. Listening to you, one would think Linux could have never been developed because Microsoft put billions into Windows.

    https://hai.stanford.edu/news/inside-the-ai-index-12-takeaways-from-the-2026-report

    Also, highly unlikely they would get banned, because there's a huge amount of capital in the US now being invested in companies using open models already. But even if the burger reich banned them why should I give a fuck, I don't live in that shithole.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 8 minutes ago

    Compute is the bottleneck for AI, not labor. Linux was able to develop more because of the labor being done by huge number of people for free and from those employed by other companies working on it. If AI keeps accelerating on the same trajectory, there is little reason to hope for it to get better as the models get larger and training costs get higher


    The Luddites were not just smashing machines, they had a list of demands they were trying to build pressure for. They were also trying to get the rights for unions, strikes, abolishing child labor, minimum wages and the things like that which shifted powers back into the favor of workers. They had tried petitioning governments for that for a while before they started smashing things


    If the US bans open-weight models, you don't think a large number of countries would be heavily pressured by industry to do the same?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 hour ago (1 child)

    The comparison to the luddites is interesting as you're tacitly saying "no you guys are right but your fucked anyway".

    There is no good end with this technology. None. It will be used to abuse the working class, it will alienate workers from their labor, and it will bring an enormous amount of harm to vast numbers of people. This technology gives nothing in return for this loss except the ability to consume faster.

    These discussions never focus on the fact that this tool optimizes the, already, most efficient part of the human supply chain, ideation and design. This tool does not make any of the other bottlenecks that slow human progress faster, those being implementation, adoption, and translation of solutions to different environments. The human race had the tools to solve world hunger shortly after the invention of nitrogenated fertilizer; yet here we are. The human race created a source of nearly infinite clean energy with negative temperature-coefficient fission reactors; yet here we are.

    But you're ultimately right. The luddites lost, we'll lose, and we're fucked.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [S] -1 points 41 minutes ago

    No, that's not what I'm saying at all. The Luddites were highly skilled workers, who saw a few capitalists growing rich by introducing machinery to substitute for their own skill. So, they set to work to burn the factories down thinking that if they could destroy the machines, the problem would be solved. But technological advances could not be stopped by mere vandalism. The Luddites ultimately failed in their efforts because they failed to grasp the material forces driving the march of history. The machines prevailed because the ruling class wanted to cut costs and increase profits. The evils of the Industrial Revolution grew out of the possession of the means of production which grants the power to determine how technology is used. The same is true today, and it is why similar attempts to boycott AI are doomed to fail. Those who want to stop these systems from being put into production are merely attacking the symptoms of the underlying material relations.

    It is not the inherent qualities of machinery that should be condemned here, but rather the class relations within which it happens to be applied. This is precisely what Marx articulated showing that technology does not exist as an isolated phenomenon, but is dominated by the social structure of the society in which it happens to occur. To control the means of production collectively is to make technology serve human needs rather than merely increase the profits of the rich. That is the very lesson that the Luddites missed, and that a great many critics of AI are missing today as well.

    The rational strategy for those who have come to the conclusion that corporate AI cannot be trusted, which is itself very much a correct one, should be to focus their energy on ways to develop this technology outside the stranglehold of corporations. We already have a powerful example in the form of open source software. And with the release of Chinese model weights, there is a solid foundation to build upon.

    The more open models are used, the less demand there will be for the proprietary ones. These models are the tools that people can run on their own machines, and under their own control. Developing and using open alternatives to paid APIs cuts directly into the profits of the corporations renting out LLMs. A mere boycott will not alter the balance of economic forces or change the status quo. If you want to resist, do it constructively by encouraging the use and development of this technology in the open.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 2 hours ago (5 children)

    "Grow up, join the sect. If not you'll be left out when we all become AI-augmented and fly to Mars"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 2 hours ago (3 children)

    join the sect says the person who's against a glorified calculator?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 hours ago (2 children)

    My calculator has 100% accuracy, always, it's never wrong. If AI were like that it'd be great.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 hour ago

    And calculators can't be tweaked to subtly change messaging to push a narrative, or a product, or whatever.

    Calculators didn't steal the work of all humanity to try to put them out of a job.

    Calculators don't really get used for scams by cloning people's voices.

    Could go on and on how calculators and LLMs are different.

  • source
  • parent