Technology is a product of science. The facts science seeks to uncover are fundamental universal truths that aren't subject to human folly. Only how we use that knowledge is subject to human folly. I don't think open source or open weights models are a bad usage of that knowledge. Some of the things corporations do are bad or exploitative uses of that knowledge.

[–] Umbrias@beehaw.org 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

You should really try and consider what it means for technology to be a cultural feature. Think, genuinely and critically, about what it means when someone tells you that you shouldn't judge the ethics and values of their pursuits, because they are simply discovering "universal truths".

And then, really make sure you ponder what it means when people say the purpose of a system is what it does. Why that might get brought up in discussions about wanton resource spending for venture capitalist hype.

[–] areyouevenreal@lemm.ee 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

That's not at all what I am doing, or what scientists and engineers do. We are all trained to think about ethics and seek ethical approval because even if knowledge itself is morally neutral the methods to obtain that knowledge can be truly unhinged.

Scientific facts are not a cultural facet. A device built using scientific knowledge is also a product of the culture that built it. Technology stands between objective science and subjective needs and culture. Technology generally serves some form of purpose.

Here is an example: Heavier than air flight is a possibility because of the laws of physics. A Boeing 737 is a specific product of both those laws of physics and of USA culture. It's purpose is to get people and things to places, and to make Boeing the company money.

LLMs can be used for good and ill. People have argued they use too much energy for what they do. I would say that depends on where you get your energy from. Ultimately though it doesn't use as much as people driving cars or mining bitcoin or eating meat. You should be going after those first if you want to persecute people for using energy.

[–] Umbrias@beehaw.org 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

It does not appear to me that you have even humored my request. I'm actually not even confident you read my comment given your response doesn't actually respond to it. I hope you will.

[–] areyouevenreal@lemm.ee 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Think, genuinely and critically, about what it means when someone tells you that you shouldn’t judge the ethics and values of their pursuits, because they are simply discovering “universal truths”.

No scientist or engineer as ever said that as far as I can recall. I was explaining that even for scientific fact which is morally neutral how you get there is important, and that scientists and engineers acknowledge this. What you are asking me to do this based on a false premise and a bad understanding of how science works.

And then, really make sure you ponder what it means when people say the purpose of a system is what it does.

It both is and isn't. Things often have consequences alongside their intended function, like how a machine gets warm when in use. It getting warm isn't a deliberate feature, it's a consequence of the laws of thermodynamics. We actually try to minimise this as it wastes energy. Even things like fossil fuels aren't intended to ruin the planet, it's a side effect of how they work.

[–] Umbrias@beehaw.org 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

It's a very common talking point now to claim technology exists independent of the culture surrounding it. It is a lie to justify morally vacant research which the, normally venture capitalist, is only concerned about the money to be made. But engineers and scientists necessarily go along with it. It's not not your problem because we are the ones executing cultural wants, we are a part of the broader culture as well.

The purpose of a system is, absolutely, what it does. It doesn't matter how well intentioned your design and ethics were, once the system is doing things, those things are its purpose. Your waste heat example, yes, it was the design intent to eliminate that, but now that's what it does, and the engineers damn well understand that its purpose is to generate waste heat in order to do whatever work it's doing.

This is a systems engineering concept. And it's inescapable.

[–] areyouevenreal@lemm.ee 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

The purpose of a system is, absolutely, what it does. It doesn’t matter how well intentioned your design and ethics were, once the system is doing things, those things are its purpose. Your waste heat example, yes, it was the design intent to eliminate that, but now that’s what it does, and the engineers damn well understand that its purpose is to generate waste heat in order to do whatever work it’s doing.

Huh? Then why is so much money spent on computers to minimize energy usage and heat production? This is perhaps the biggest load of bullshit I think I have heard in a long time. Maybe there is some concept similar to this, but if so you clearly haven't articulated it well.

Anyway I think I am done talking about this with you. You are here to fear-monger over technology you probably don't even use or understand, and I am sick of lemmings doing it.

[–] Umbrias@beehaw.org 0 points 4 months ago

More likely you're more interested in finding a way to disagree with the concept of posiwid than in doing basic research or listening.

It's funny when y'all use "fear mongering" for people pointing out systemic issues with ai and its hype. Though it's honestly tragic how uninterested you are in considering why AI and its hype is being criticized. Whatever makes the exploitative slave labor trained energy hungry silicon make venture capital money disappear, eh?