Post

this is the really ineffective head-in-the-sand reaction a lot of folks on Bluesky tend to have if you talk about any harm reduction-based approach to the reality that millions of people are using AI tools today. The current approach to critiquing AI is obviously not working, but they don't care.

this feels akin to bowing out of a fight worth having. you do not have to pledge fealty to the LLMs and AI apps simple bc they are popular?

Is there anything in between "pledge fealty to LLMs" and "decry anyone who uses ChatGPT as an environment destroying fascist collaborator and block them", or is that where we're at these days?

course there is. but i'd also like to note i didnt say the 2nd thing you put quotes around lol

You did not! But the "AI Apologists" moderation list Anil is referring to is indeed the kind of thing often used for that, and that is the AI discourse we seem to have on Bluesky: entirely lacking in nuance.

Yeah, I mean, I’m literally critical of big tech & the major AI companies every single day, and I’ve had a whole bunch of people in my mentions today tell me I’m an AI shill, even as I literally work on securing funding for researchers working on impact studies of harms. I think facts should matter.

that is fair and i don't think you're a shill! i think my response was meant to be in a tangential thread w emily bender- my bad. i do not believe that it's a worthwhile effort to train people to use LLMs more effectively, that's all.

while I'm totally sympathetic to the idea that we shouldn't be instructing people to use LLMs more (I disagree with it, but don't think it's Absurdly Wrong or horrible in some way), there are areas where people do *need* to learn how they work: basically any supervisory role (teacher, manager, etc).