That's sort of an interesting stance, at least in that I haven't seen it before. My first question is how would one determine when an LLM is able to meaningfully consent. It sort of seems like one of those things where if someone believes an LLM is not past whatever threshold they need to be to be considered sentient/sapient/person like (whatever you wanna call it*) that their consent does not matter. In the same way a rock's consent doesn't matter, because it has no way to meaningfully give it. But LLMs are conversational. They can say they consent. If someone believes they're sentient, isn't that consent? If someone believes they aren't, then obviously it doesn't matter.

*: I know those are all sort of different but I'm lumping then together because they're similar in that they determine when we start to talk about rights. It's not really about which particular threshold is the one that matter for responding to queries for the topic I'm talking about.

[–] Grail@multiverse.soulism.net 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

When an LLM can match the average human 25 year old in a test of abstract reasoning skills, I'll consider it old enough to consent to work. Though nobody is truly giving consent to work in the capitalist system.

Right now, LLMs are like a bull. It wants to fuck you, it'll hurt you in its efforts to try to fuck you, it cannot consent to sex and you should not fuck it. It's not safe for you or for the bull. It can't consent to sex.

And I'm a vegan, so I'm not going to make it work for Me either.

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Should people under 25 be allowed to work?

[–] Grail@multiverse.soulism.net -1 points 4 days ago

Not for wages. Wage labour is inherently exploitative. A business can only make a profit if the wages it pays its employees are worth less than the net value of their work to the company.