@bkuhn @silverwizard @copiesofcopies @cwebber I don't think everyone who uses LLMs are the enemy! I'm one of them!
0 Boosts
0 Likes
@bkuhn @wwahammy @silverwizard @copiesofcopies I *like* the idea of harm reduction, I think it's a good framing. But I don't think Conservancy's statement succeeded at it.
At a pivotal moment where there was an opportunity to *spell out the harms*, the position statement more or less put using genAI and refusing to use it as approximately "equally valid" positions. I think it did a lot to *normalize* usage in that moment, and so I'm still deeply frustrated by it. And that didn't and doesn't feel like harm reduction to me.
If you want to go about harm reduction, *at least* stick to only using local, open weight models! Kill that Claude subscription! You can't reduce harms while helping out the cartel.
@cwebber
That statement was a 1ˢᵗ step, not definitive list of recommendations. The statement says so, but if you find places where the document gives the impression a mic-drop was intended, I am sure everyone on the drafting committee would like to fix that.
The statement is also clear that the recommendations are listed in order of importance and “right to refuse” is listed first.
I do want to convince Anthropic users to engage with that system less harmfully. That's what I'm using it for.
@wwahammy
Right, so, that's why I am surprised your position is that I (and/or all of SFC) is letting you down!
I truly would organize an LLM-gen-AI boycott in the industry if I thought it could work. I actually tried to get people to boycott proprietary software when I started as a Free Software activist!
So many ppl already use LLM-gen-AI. *Someone* who is ethical & cares about software freedom needs to produce guidance to reduce harm.
Who else will do it?
@silverwizard @copiesofcopies