grrgyle

@grrgyle@slrpnk.net · Joined ⁨Mar⁩ ⁨2024⁩

Class: He/him/they.
Alignment: Hopeful loser.
Aesthetic: WIP, horror vacui / amor copia.

🚧🚧🚧🚧🚧🚧🚧🚧🚧🚧🚧
🚧 UNDER CONSTRUCTION🚧
🚧🚧🚧🚧🚧🚧🚧🚧🚧🚧🚧

Replying to @⁨lastlybutfirstly@lemmy.world⁩

The main problem with the output of LLMs is people not checking results, but there are ethical problems with the effective use of it too. Especially if you’re you’re dealing with the major platforms, who have shown no qualms allying themselves with fascist governments, surveillance capitalists, or just generally being cavalier about workers rights. (And obviously extracting value from the commons and renting it out on a scale never before seen, but that’s the obvious one.)

I would say the same thing about hosting services on AWS. The corporate world does it because it just makes financial sense, but all they care about is outputs. I expect better from individuals who are trying to send a message.

Replying to @⁨Mubelotix@jlai.lu⁩

The rule is for vibe coded projects. From the article:

If your work fits into these cases, it is unlikely that you are affected at all:

  • Projects who have an active community that cares about and maintains the software
  • Projects with a significant pre-LLM history
  • Maintainers who unknowingly or willingly accepted LLM-generated contributions from other contributors, if your project otherwise does not involve the heavy use of LLMs

They don’t need a rule that can be run automatically because it’s a purely human operation that is trying to take a stand against the more pernicious effects of corporate LLMs.

Do you just disagree with this stance and are just trying to poke whatever hypothetical holes you can in their logic, or do you just want more rigorous definitions/rules?

From experience, content moderation works best when there is some flexibility in the rules, so people can talk it out and come to concessions together.