Post

I think a lot of people in tech are probably feeling something close to despair about what to do about LLMs, since it’s clear that those with power are not going to relent with their advocacy, and they have enough uses that they’ve gained critical mass, yet the harms & risks are so wildly egregious…

94 reposts544 likes

I think the answer has to be a multiplicity of responses. There need to be *many* alternatives, created by many entities. The answer to McDonald’s being unhealthy isn’t “make another fast food joint” — it’s getting rid of food deserts and improving nutrition overall. Give power back to the people…

I've used the McDonald's analogy a lot with smaller software creators or service providers who get bummed out seeing exploitative garbage attract a lot of funding and attention. McDonald's exists. Don't worry about them. Figure out what your role is, what you offer, etc.

I think people fixate on the flashy startups with billion dollar valuations and miss out on all the successful small to medium businesses that provide a solid living to a handful of people. Success doesn't have to be what the media tells you it is. You get to define success.

If people want some of the things AI can do, have those technologies be provided by tools & platforms created by cooperatives, by unions, by universities and governments, by municipalities and by individual creators, or as open source owned by nobody. Destroy the economic value of proprietary tools.

“Open source” doesn’t mean “owned by no one” … but I think you’re right that opening up the model’s training data and weights is a good 1st step. I’m not an expert on libre software licenses as they would apply to an LLM, but having a competitive, public domain AI is in the public interest for sure

There is a long history of communities effectively competing with closed platforms — and certainly a worker’s coop could make a tool that is better for the environment, better about intellectual property, not prone to hallucinations, and that has safety guard rails so it won’t incite self-harm.

Coming back to this thread... After deeper research I'm finding lots of people who've built LLM products who are excited about the prospect of individual software developers spending $200 a month on side projects. Sounds to me like some people are dreaming of a world where wealth builds code.

Love this. I just started thinking about what it'd take to provide an LLM to at least my neighborhood community. Do folks in this thread know good resources to start learning in this direction?

There has been a forty year effort to make this sort of thing happen in software that has been basically ignored by the organized political left for aesthetic / vibe reasons (this is the reason I despise the political left). I'm not holding my breath I expect vibes will once again carry the day.

If you despise people for not understanding stuff then you kind of have to be a psychopath. For example, you don’t understand human nature.

strongly agree with this but it is hard to imagine a world where coops/etc have both the resources and the inclination to lawlessness to recreate the most powerful models, leaving users to choose between kneecapping themselves or participating in the problem

not using this as thought termination, more restating the power imbalance problem; current models are so powerful precisely because they are made by people who give no fucks, competing with today's SOTA with any level of care will be quite hard and may take years, while SOTA continues to advance

A hammer can build and a hammer can kill. It's the hand that wields it that decides. The machines just do what they're told. If that's a problem, well... that's an "us" problem.

Also tax the crap out of data centers. It is ridiculous that so many states and counties provide tax INCENTIVES to build data centers that are going to make everyone’s home electric bills double or triple in the next few years.

There are legitimate and useful use-cases for AI and the LLMs that power it, but I would argue that 90% of it is "AI is magic pixie dust" solution to everything that is dominating most of the "growth" we're seeing. The expectations of ROI are too high, thus the rank desperation.

I’m totally fine with investing in things that help people, like healthcare, green energy, scientific research, but cutting those while burning billions investing in a technology that doesn’t inherently produce value is infernally moronic and ill-advised.

Senior IT leader on a career break here. This bothers and scares me because I absolutely agree but I know in any interview I'm going to get questions about how I'd deploy LLMs into their org. Threading the needle of placating misplaced desires vs staying true to my views is going to be fun