Except that it’s absolutely not out of the hands of the workers. The whole question here is whether this tech is going to be developed by corps who will decide who can use it and what content can be generated, or whether the development will be done in the open, accessible to everyone, and community driven. Rejection of these tools ensures that the former will be the case.
Firstly, “whether the development will be done in the open, accessible to everyone, and community driven” is largely not in the question when it comes to the training data itself, which is the most resource intensive aspect of this to begin with.
Secondly, “Rejection of these tools ensures that the former will be the case.”, you’re circling back again for the third time to a point that I haven’t made, and have explicitly clarified that it’s not the point that I’m discussing.
This follows the pattern of the comment threads of the other posts I’ve read on this topic, which is why I was hesitant to comment on this one to begin with. There is no point in having a conversation if you reply without showing the basic decency to read what I wrote.
Firstly, “whether the development will be done in the open, accessible to everyone, and community driven” is largely not in the question when it comes to the training data itself, which is the most resource intensive aspect of this to begin with.
This follows the pattern of the comment threads of the other posts I’ve read on this topic, which is why I was hesitant to comment on this one to begin with. There is no point in having a conversation if you reply without showing the basic decency to read what I wrote.
Frankly, I don’t understand what the actual point is that you’re trying to make if it’s not the one I’m addressing. As far as I’m concerned, the basic facts of the situation is that this technology currently exists, and it will continue to be developed. The only question that matters is how it will be developed and who will control it. If you think that’s not correct then feel free to clearly articulate your counterpoint.
I am not talking about the technology itself or what is to be done regarding it, I’m simply highlighting that the manner in which the conversation around it in this instance is conducted is more often than not antagonistic and unproductive.
Posts that are meant to educate should not be hostile, condescending, or antagonistic. People’s concerns, when they are engaging in good faith, should not be waved away and ignored.
It’s important to understand why we communicate something. What is the goal that we’re trying to achieve? It’s important to be honest about this with ourselves before we choose to speak. Is the goal of a post I’m making to try and seek opinions? Is it to gauge interest in something? Is it to educate the community on a specific topic that I have certain knowledge about? Is it to critique a particular point of view? It could also be to make a joke and share a laugh about something, or it could be to express frustrations and personal grievances.
We should answer this question before we communicate something. We could read the post or comment again and ask ourselves “does this post/comment fit with the goal I had in mind?” If I’m making posts that consistently result in unproductive conversations in the comments in a community that is otherwise quite pleasant to interact with, then I may reassess the way that I’m approaching this topic.
I chose to comment on this post not as a knee-jerk reaction to the needlessly provocative title, rather because I saw it as part of a pattern with the discussions surrounding this topic on this instance. The point I am trying to make is that it does not benefit anyone on this instance to keep spreading hostilities.
If believe that this is an important topic, one that people here should take seriously and engage with as it’s relevant to their lives and their movements, you should not resort to reducing all their concerns, opinions, and personal preferences to ignorance, primitivism, or paint them as Luddites.
As I said before, I would not afford the same patience to people expressing bigoted views or harmful historic revisionism, this is not that.
Speaking personally as an example, I do not disagree with your main premise. I do not believe that these technologies should be ignored, rejected, or shunned as a whole. I am not against automation, nor am I against the use of similar technologies in creative pursuits such as art or music in principle. I however do dislike these AI generated memes and comics. I do dislike the use cases people employ LLMs in 90% of the time. I do dislike that every single field is urged to incorporate some of these technologies somehow before a problem is even identified and trying to force-sell a solution. I do dislike the way that it’s currently used by people who are my juniors, who rely on information from corporate LLMs without having a single inkling of how they work.
We may agree, disagree, discuss certain points, I could change my perspective on something, that is all great, but you have to understand that in a case where I or other users are frustrated or annoyed by something like AI generated memes or comics on these communities, it does not automatically mean that we’re Luddites.
To recap again the point I’m trying to make: please stop using antagonistic, passive-aggressive, and condescending methods to try and get your points across regarding this topic. It does not help.
I made a post about something which I thought was interesting and insightful. A bunch of people came in to make snide comments and personal attacks. But turns out it’s my fault that the tone of the discussion the way it is. I have absolutely no problem having a civil discussion about the topic with people who themselves act in a civil way, and want to genuinely understand the subject. I simply do not have patience to deal with people who personally attack me and do what amounts to trolling.
If that’s your takeaway from everything I wrote, then there’s not much else I could say.
A bunch of people came in to make snide comments and personal attacks. But turns out it’s my fault that the tone of the discussion the way it is.
You set the tone of the discussion through the title of the post, I’m not sure why you won’t even acknowledge that this wasn’t a civil nor respective way to start an honest conversation.
The title of the post is literally the title of the article. I didn’t edit it in any way, and the fact that you’re now blaming me for it is frankly incredible.
My point is that you should’ve edited the title if you saw that the content of the article is interesting, but its headline is clearly antagonistic. There is no reason to adopt the author’s callousness.
How you believe that starting off a conversation by implying that people who disagree with you are “nuts”, even if it’s the authors words, won’t lead to people taking issue with it, as they should, is odd.
Why not simply acknowledge that there is a better way to have these conversations, that we could all learn and move forward and stop antagonising each other instead of doubling down on defending this?
I didn’t give the headline any thought, and it seems you’re projecting an intention to antagonize onto it. My sole aim was to share the piece because of its interesting content.
I agree that it’s always best when conversations can proceed constructively and without unintended antagonism. However, it’s also true that those who are critical of LLMs have made similar replies to posts with titles that couldn’t possibly be considered antagonistic.
To sum it up, let’s “be the change we wish to see.” If people make polite and constructive comments, we can have civil discussions. If people engage in sealioning or leave snarky comments, that will inevitably set a different tone for the discussion.
At the end of the day, if people aren’t interested in a particular topic, they can simply choose not to comment, rather than actively trying to antagonize others and then claiming victimhood.
What you are currently doing to Yogthos is a known nasty troll tactic called tone policing.
For clarity for the rest of the people in thread, Tone policing is a tactic to dismiss the ideas being communicated and is aimed at the tone of a disagreement, instead of looking at the facts or logic of the content.
Except that it’s absolutely not out of the hands of the workers. The whole question here is whether this tech is going to be developed by corps who will decide who can use it and what content can be generated, or whether the development will be done in the open, accessible to everyone, and community driven. Rejection of these tools ensures that the former will be the case.
Firstly, “whether the development will be done in the open, accessible to everyone, and community driven” is largely not in the question when it comes to the training data itself, which is the most resource intensive aspect of this to begin with.
Secondly, “Rejection of these tools ensures that the former will be the case.”, you’re circling back again for the third time to a point that I haven’t made, and have explicitly clarified that it’s not the point that I’m discussing.
This follows the pattern of the comment threads of the other posts I’ve read on this topic, which is why I was hesitant to comment on this one to begin with. There is no point in having a conversation if you reply without showing the basic decency to read what I wrote.
I don’t see why. For example, tools like this already exist https://github.com/bigscience-workshop/petals
Frankly, I don’t understand what the actual point is that you’re trying to make if it’s not the one I’m addressing. As far as I’m concerned, the basic facts of the situation is that this technology currently exists, and it will continue to be developed. The only question that matters is how it will be developed and who will control it. If you think that’s not correct then feel free to clearly articulate your counterpoint.
I am not talking about the technology itself or what is to be done regarding it, I’m simply highlighting that the manner in which the conversation around it in this instance is conducted is more often than not antagonistic and unproductive.
Posts that are meant to educate should not be hostile, condescending, or antagonistic. People’s concerns, when they are engaging in good faith, should not be waved away and ignored.
It’s important to understand why we communicate something. What is the goal that we’re trying to achieve? It’s important to be honest about this with ourselves before we choose to speak. Is the goal of a post I’m making to try and seek opinions? Is it to gauge interest in something? Is it to educate the community on a specific topic that I have certain knowledge about? Is it to critique a particular point of view? It could also be to make a joke and share a laugh about something, or it could be to express frustrations and personal grievances. We should answer this question before we communicate something. We could read the post or comment again and ask ourselves “does this post/comment fit with the goal I had in mind?” If I’m making posts that consistently result in unproductive conversations in the comments in a community that is otherwise quite pleasant to interact with, then I may reassess the way that I’m approaching this topic.
I chose to comment on this post not as a knee-jerk reaction to the needlessly provocative title, rather because I saw it as part of a pattern with the discussions surrounding this topic on this instance. The point I am trying to make is that it does not benefit anyone on this instance to keep spreading hostilities. If believe that this is an important topic, one that people here should take seriously and engage with as it’s relevant to their lives and their movements, you should not resort to reducing all their concerns, opinions, and personal preferences to ignorance, primitivism, or paint them as Luddites.
As I said before, I would not afford the same patience to people expressing bigoted views or harmful historic revisionism, this is not that.
Speaking personally as an example, I do not disagree with your main premise. I do not believe that these technologies should be ignored, rejected, or shunned as a whole. I am not against automation, nor am I against the use of similar technologies in creative pursuits such as art or music in principle. I however do dislike these AI generated memes and comics. I do dislike the use cases people employ LLMs in 90% of the time. I do dislike that every single field is urged to incorporate some of these technologies somehow before a problem is even identified and trying to force-sell a solution. I do dislike the way that it’s currently used by people who are my juniors, who rely on information from corporate LLMs without having a single inkling of how they work. We may agree, disagree, discuss certain points, I could change my perspective on something, that is all great, but you have to understand that in a case where I or other users are frustrated or annoyed by something like AI generated memes or comics on these communities, it does not automatically mean that we’re Luddites.
To recap again the point I’m trying to make: please stop using antagonistic, passive-aggressive, and condescending methods to try and get your points across regarding this topic. It does not help.
I made a post about something which I thought was interesting and insightful. A bunch of people came in to make snide comments and personal attacks. But turns out it’s my fault that the tone of the discussion the way it is. I have absolutely no problem having a civil discussion about the topic with people who themselves act in a civil way, and want to genuinely understand the subject. I simply do not have patience to deal with people who personally attack me and do what amounts to trolling.
If that’s your takeaway from everything I wrote, then there’s not much else I could say.
You set the tone of the discussion through the title of the post, I’m not sure why you won’t even acknowledge that this wasn’t a civil nor respective way to start an honest conversation.
The title of the post is literally the title of the article. I didn’t edit it in any way, and the fact that you’re now blaming me for it is frankly incredible.
My point is that you should’ve edited the title if you saw that the content of the article is interesting, but its headline is clearly antagonistic. There is no reason to adopt the author’s callousness.
How you believe that starting off a conversation by implying that people who disagree with you are “nuts”, even if it’s the authors words, won’t lead to people taking issue with it, as they should, is odd.
Why not simply acknowledge that there is a better way to have these conversations, that we could all learn and move forward and stop antagonising each other instead of doubling down on defending this?
I didn’t give the headline any thought, and it seems you’re projecting an intention to antagonize onto it. My sole aim was to share the piece because of its interesting content.
I agree that it’s always best when conversations can proceed constructively and without unintended antagonism. However, it’s also true that those who are critical of LLMs have made similar replies to posts with titles that couldn’t possibly be considered antagonistic.
To sum it up, let’s “be the change we wish to see.” If people make polite and constructive comments, we can have civil discussions. If people engage in sealioning or leave snarky comments, that will inevitably set a different tone for the discussion.
At the end of the day, if people aren’t interested in a particular topic, they can simply choose not to comment, rather than actively trying to antagonize others and then claiming victimhood.
What you are currently doing to Yogthos is a known nasty troll tactic called tone policing.
For clarity for the rest of the people in thread, Tone policing is a tactic to dismiss the ideas being communicated and is aimed at the tone of a disagreement, instead of looking at the facts or logic of the content.
Do better, NotMushroomForDebate.
10000% this. Thank you for writing this