FWIW I really disagree with Cory Doctorow on the "purity culture" thing but I'm not going to get mad about it.
-
@budududuroiu make it economically unviable *and* explain that it's unethical. you don't have to stop one to do the other, and in fact they provide motivation to each other and can mutually reinforce
@budududuroiu more importantly *you* don't have to do both. let the moralizers moralize while the economics people economize. Personally I remain skeptical that it _can_ be made economically unviable (it's already economically unviable, that's why it's a huge money-losing bubble) but the current structure of our markets is such that they can keep losing money for years, maybe decades, before the bill comes due, and there will be several freshly minted billionaires by the time that's done
-
@budududuroiu more importantly *you* don't have to do both. let the moralizers moralize while the economics people economize. Personally I remain skeptical that it _can_ be made economically unviable (it's already economically unviable, that's why it's a huge money-losing bubble) but the current structure of our markets is such that they can keep losing money for years, maybe decades, before the bill comes due, and there will be several freshly minted billionaires by the time that's done
@budududuroiu but that doesn't mean that I would stop the neoliberal technocrats attempting to policy-wonk it out of existence. it takes all kinds.
-
@budududuroiu make it economically unviable *and* explain that it's unethical. you don't have to stop one to do the other, and in fact they provide motivation to each other and can mutually reinforce
@glyph why is it unethical? I don't buy the argument that it's built on extractive principles, because a) having the tech to use permissively is contributing it to the Commons it allegedly stole from, b) I'm a dirty commie and I don't find it ethical to extract value from gatekeeping (especially knowledge, how is this different between JSTOR v. Swarz), and c) it is possible to take something built with dubious reasons (ARPANET) and contribute it to the Commons (the Internet)
-
@budududuroiu more importantly *you* don't have to do both. let the moralizers moralize while the economics people economize. Personally I remain skeptical that it _can_ be made economically unviable (it's already economically unviable, that's why it's a huge money-losing bubble) but the current structure of our markets is such that they can keep losing money for years, maybe decades, before the bill comes due, and there will be several freshly minted billionaires by the time that's done
@glyph that's a good point, I mainly am against it because it's clearly a wedge issue in an otherwise quite Rainbow Coalition of progressives, e.g. I've noticed accounts take out pitchforks in response to the Ghostty dude saying he uses AI.
I mainly want to reach the critical mass to wield power as a collective, not endlessly criticise it.
-
@glyph why is it unethical? I don't buy the argument that it's built on extractive principles, because a) having the tech to use permissively is contributing it to the Commons it allegedly stole from, b) I'm a dirty commie and I don't find it ethical to extract value from gatekeeping (especially knowledge, how is this different between JSTOR v. Swarz), and c) it is possible to take something built with dubious reasons (ARPANET) and contribute it to the Commons (the Internet)
@budududuroiu I have not carefully separated out the "local LLM" and "hosted LLM" problems but my own entry in this genre is here https://blog.glyph.im/2025/06/i-think-im-done-thinking-about-genai-for-now.html
it appears that you're arguing with Cory's silly strawman of a critic though, rather than any actual person who believes that these things are bad?
-
@budududuroiu I have not carefully separated out the "local LLM" and "hosted LLM" problems but my own entry in this genre is here https://blog.glyph.im/2025/06/i-think-im-done-thinking-about-genai-for-now.html
it appears that you're arguing with Cory's silly strawman of a critic though, rather than any actual person who believes that these things are bad?
@glyph I'm arguing my own critique, which I've written about here before this Cory Doctorow row
-
@glyph I'm arguing my own critique, which I've written about here before this Cory Doctorow row
@budududuroiu ah okay. I also believe you are wrong about this but for a different reason :). skip the other blog post I linked you, read this one instead https://blog.glyph.im/2025/08/futzing-fraction.html
-
@budududuroiu ah okay. I also believe you are wrong about this but for a different reason :). skip the other blog post I linked you, read this one instead https://blog.glyph.im/2025/08/futzing-fraction.html
@glyph Cheers, I do enjoy your writing btw, despite maybe not agreeing with the message
-
R ActivityRelay shared this topic
-
FWIW I really disagree with Cory Doctorow on the "purity culture" thing but I'm not going to get mad about it. The man's job is having takes. He has like fifty takes a day. He is Takes Georg. The vast majority of the takes are fine, and many are actually pretty great. If I had to have that many takes that fast I would have _way_ more terrible takes. I hope he changes his mind on this one but even if not it's fine I don't have to agree with everyone on everything
-
FWIW I really disagree with Cory Doctorow on the "purity culture" thing but I'm not going to get mad about it. The man's job is having takes. He has like fifty takes a day. He is Takes Georg. The vast majority of the takes are fine, and many are actually pretty great. If I had to have that many takes that fast I would have _way_ more terrible takes. I hope he changes his mind on this one but even if not it's fine I don't have to agree with everyone on everything
@glyph yeah, that's why I'm a tumblrina instead of a pundit
-
@glyph Somewhere there's a political compass chart with "purity culture," "identity politics," and "political correctness" labelled like regions in the phase diagram for water.
-
N Marianne shared this topic
