For those unaware, Linus Torvalds this year has deeply cast his lot with the hyperscale LLMs for development of Linux code, dismissing arguments that this is an abdication of responsibility over that code base.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 5 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) (9 children)

I am familiar with their actual history, but the colloquialism has taken on its own life just as the term "nimrod" no longer describes the famous hunter of that name but rather a bumbling buffoon.

As regards the politics of it, we can split these hairs all day. Where do we draw the line between a tool and a weapon? Which tools are acceptable to use and in what ways?

That AI is being used as a political bludgeon is not the fault of AI any more than gunshot wounds are the direct fault of the gun; they are tools being used for particular aims. I consider both equally dangerous in the right (wrong) hands, but by that same token a gun can be used to feed a family when used for hunting just as AI has provided monetary benefits to regular working people.

A tool cannot in and of itself be political. Its use and application absolutely can.

ETA: Upon re-reading I see that my "nimrod" comparison can read as an insult. I meant it more in how Bugs Bunny altered the colloquial meaning. I was not trying to be disparaging in any way and apologize if I offended.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 21 points 7 hours ago (5 children)

    A tool cannot in and of itself be political.

    I disagree, and I'm not alone: https://gomakethings.com/articles/all-tech-is-political/

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) (4 children)

    I wouldn't dare do the disservice of judging the article (in full) purely on title, but "technology" includes the hammer, the wheel, and all the way around to sticks and fire.

    Again, I am willing to debate the ethics of use of any given technology all day as that is absolutely a conversation worth having, especially with some technologies like spy satellites and permanently-connected IOT devices alongside LLMs.

    But technology itself isn't inherently political.

    Now I'm clicking the link.

    Edit: Upon reading, I fully take their point, but my own lens of it is more that everything is within the realm of politics rather than innately political itself. Tractors aren't inherently political, but John Deere managed to make them so. Actors using, to my earlier point, any technology as a lever for politics doesn't inherently make that technology political.

    I appreciate that viewpoint immensely however, even though I don't fully align with it myself.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 6 hours ago

    Obviously there is a spectrum between sewing needles and nuclear weapons.. But I think it's clear that even e.g. stone axes have had meaningful impacts on the structure of society and also on politics as a subset of that (e.g. their use had implications for power relationships, perhaps as a weapon, perhaps as a way to increase socioeconomic status, etc.)

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

    Get out of here with your nuanced takes and reading entire articles!

    This is Lemmy good sir, and we crucify people based on general vibes and extreme positions!

    Off to the downvotes!

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

    There is no such thing as, "just a tool", just as there is no topic that cannot be made political.

    Stop being a willfully ignorant fuckface.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments