FWIW I really disagree with Cory Doctorow on the "purity culture" thing but I'm not going to get mad about it.
-
@glyph I'm not accusing you of that, I'm saying purity testing on AI use (between people that can afford the choice of using AI or not) has no material effect on people that are forced to be Reverse Centaurs and is mostly a position of privilege to have.
It's mental onanism disguised as social justice
@budududuroiu this is a totally different discussion and it feels like kind of annoying goalpost-moving given that it wasn't what Cory was talking about when the "purity culture" argument was first raised. I don't know who is doing, as you describe it, "this type of moralism", as he barely even gestures at whoever is doing the *different* type of moralism he describes
-
@budududuroiu this is a totally different discussion and it feels like kind of annoying goalpost-moving given that it wasn't what Cory was talking about when the "purity culture" argument was first raised. I don't know who is doing, as you describe it, "this type of moralism", as he barely even gestures at whoever is doing the *different* type of moralism he describes
@glyph my goal isn't to annoy you, but to me this was related to
> That's how we make good tech: not by insisting that all its inputs be free from sin, but by purging that wickedness by liberating the technology from its monstrous forebears and making free and open versions of it
I point at moralising because the core reason why AI is being pushed everywhere right now is because it promises growth in an environment of expensive capital (high interest rates). Most of this deployment is from knowledge work because the West has a) almost completely deindustrialised and b) has a high proportion of highly financialised by ultimately bullshit jobs.
To me, taking the fight to AI means making it economically unattractive, either by enshrining in law that human authorship is needed for copyright, or making models so efficient that large datacentres expenditure becomes foolish.
-
@glyph my goal isn't to annoy you, but to me this was related to
> That's how we make good tech: not by insisting that all its inputs be free from sin, but by purging that wickedness by liberating the technology from its monstrous forebears and making free and open versions of it
I point at moralising because the core reason why AI is being pushed everywhere right now is because it promises growth in an environment of expensive capital (high interest rates). Most of this deployment is from knowledge work because the West has a) almost completely deindustrialised and b) has a high proportion of highly financialised by ultimately bullshit jobs.
To me, taking the fight to AI means making it economically unattractive, either by enshrining in law that human authorship is needed for copyright, or making models so efficient that large datacentres expenditure becomes foolish.
@budududuroiu por que no los dos
-
@budududuroiu por que no los dos
@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 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
