Using fascist technology to fight fascism still promotes fascist technology.

all 81 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 22 points 2 months ago (1 child)

People figured out how to make statistical inferences smart enough to write kinda like humans and do a bunch of other things really really well. We would ignore them at our own peril.

Accepting their output as a replacement for human art and expression is another matter entirely.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] 59 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (26 children)
  • [–] 17 points 2 months ago (9 children)

    one of my specific issues is use of the word intelligence. exactly 0 of the "AI" built over the previous 60 years is "endowed with the faculty of understanding or reason"... it is false advertising at best and a scam if we're being honest.

    if they called it "bag of words" processing or "computer that is pretty good at guessing what your taking about" i'd be less irritated when people laud it's accomplishments.

    at the core, all of these technologies are signal processing and pattern recognition, nothing more.... no matter what musk, altman and the rest say there is no intelligence in there.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 2 months ago

    This is an issue of science in general, and MANY people take issue with naming conventions, even scientists themselves. Black holes aren't black and they aren't holes. The big bang didn't explode and there probably wasn't sound. The primordial soup didn't have chicken broth.

    Unfortunately, that is exceedingly unlikely to change.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 2 months ago (7 children)

    You are just using a very narrow definition of intelligence to mean exactly human-like intelligence. All intelligence is signal processing and pattern recognition. You can give LLM a novel task and it might complete it. Sometimes even well. Sure, you may argue it doesn't "understand" what's it's doing the way humans do (seemingly), but it's still intelligence of some kind.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    I'm using the definition of intelligence from a dictionary. language should be accurate. if AI folks called it "intellectual mimicry" I would have no issues.

    they are attempting to bequeath an endowment based on specious reasoning and the hope to make money; not on the actual abilities of the machine.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 months ago* (1 child)

    People focus on the "intelligence" part but ignore artificial, and I think that makes a big difference. The name is pretty apt honestly. It appears to be intelligent. It outwardly simulates intelligence. But it's all man made to present that illusion - like an artificial reef.

    Artificial: made, produced, or done by humans especially to seem like something natural.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    Sure, you may argue it doesn't "understand" what's it's doing the way humans do (seemingly)

    I think one could argue that "It doesn't actually understand what it's saying, it's just parroting its training data" also applies to a depressingly large portion of the human population.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago

    As an autist, this is pretty much how I communicated with neurotypicals for most of my life. Person says something, I pull something out of my database of premade scripts and with any luck, it made sense in context. 😅😅

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 2 months ago (8 children)

    The problem is that the general public has adopted "AI" to mean the current popular machine learning thing, the general category of "generative AI", and if you want a message about it to be received broadly, you need to use terms people will understand.

    In my case, I'm not aware of any GenAI models that produce useful output that I'd consider to be ethical, so I support this message.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 2 months ago (7 children)

    The problem is that the general public has adopted "AI" to mean the current popular machine learning thing,

    Yes, that is the problem, because people don't understand that it's a short-hand, and don't understand the difference between harmful uses, and non-harmful uses. The concept itself becomes a meaningless tribal indicator of hate. "This person is acting unethically and unlawfully," has quickly become "I don't understand what this technology is, but when I see 'AI' I automatically hate whatever it's associated with." That is counter-productive to humanity as a whole.

    So stop saying that any given technology or method is intrinsically bad, and start focusing on WHO is doing the harm and HOW.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago (6 children)

    If I'm having a direct discussion with somebody, then I'll make it clear what I'm talking about, and if they engage in a conversation about ethics, I'll explain why those things are unethical.

    But if I wanted to post a public message to voice my sentiment, I don't think trying to post a long explanation every time would do any good, most people would probably just skip it when they saw it's longer than a couple lines of text. So for those cases, I'd say you have to go down to the level of current discourse to engage with the masses on their terms if you want to be heard.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 2 months ago (5 children)

    But if I wanted to post a public message to voice my sentiment, I don't think trying to post a long explanation every time would do any good

    That's a non sequitur. The initial point was "Stop using this term incorrectly, because it spreads misunderstanding and misinformation."

    Nobody said you should write a thesis per reply, and my entire point was to focus on the harms, and the actors, not the tech.

    Saying "AI is unethical," is a truly nonsensical statement. Even if we grant that AI is shorthand for LLM, is still isn't justified as all I need to do is find an instance of an open source model being trained on public data to refute it, and there are MANY.

    Unless you think that using public data to make public software is inherently unethical, which is a hard stance to justify.

    If you're upset with Sam Altman and ChatGPT, then you can simply say "Sam Altman is a thief, and ChatGPT uses stolen data." Which is infinitely more defendable than "AI is trained on stolen data and is unethical."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (4 children)

    If you're upset with Sam Altman and ChatGPT, then you can simply say "Sam Altman is a thief, and ChatGPT uses stolen data." Which is infinitely more defendable than "AI is trained on stolen data and is unethical."

    The issue is, I'd say the same applies to every model that produces useful outputs. LLaMa, Anthropic, Grok, DeepSeek, whatever else is out there. If you tell somebody that the LLM they're using is unethical, they'll nust go use another convenient corporate model.

    And "public data" is not enough for me, because that typically means scraping copyrighted content from public websites, I'm not aware of a model that uses only data with permission (either explicit or granted by the license) that's useful, and the people who need to hear about ethical problems with GenAI especially don't know about that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (3 children)

    The issue is, I'd say the same applies to every model that produces useful outputs.

    That you know of. Your lack of awareness is not an indication on the stance of the technology itself. If you have a problem with Grok, as I do, then condemn Grok, Twitter, and that pathetic man child that owns them.

    If you tell somebody that the LLM they're using is unethical, they'll nust go use another convenient corporate model.

    Yeah, so actively fight against these toxic corporate activities. Fuck OpenAI. Fuck Google. Fuck Twitter. But the instant negative reaction to their shared tool is getting quite a few additional people caught in the blast.

    And "public data" is not enough for me, because that typically means scraping copyrighted content from public websites, I'm not aware of a model that uses only data with permission

    Again, this is an expression of your ignorance, not reality.

    OLMo 2 was trained on Wikipedia and other fully public forums. Its training sources and data is fully accessible and open.

    GPT-NeoX is an untrained model that you can train yourself. It's literally just the foundations anybody could use.

    Pythia is fully open source, and one of its training sources was GitHub. Which does genuinely bring in to question whether or not you can use GitHub to train AI. Personally, I don't see how branching a repository is any different than using the code to train a model. But the current anti-AI trend has people EXTREMELY sensitive to this concept.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (2 children)

    Again, this is an expression of your ignorance, not reality.

    OLMo 2 was trained on Wikipedia and other fully public forums. Its training sources and data is fully accessible and open.

    Decided to check out the first example quickly. It's hard to dig through the information, but following the chain of sources:

    In the first stage, which covers over 90% of the total pretraining budget, we use the OLMo-Mix-1124, a collection of approximately 3.9 trillion tokens sourced from DCLM, Dolma, Starcoder, and Proof Pile II.

    As part of DCLM, we provide a standardized corpus of 240T tokens extracted from Common Crawl

    So, it's using data from Common Crawl. What data, exactly? That'd be harder to dig up. DCLM has a repository, but they don't make an effort to point out how, or if, they're filtering the data.

    What I can quickly find is information from Common Crawl itself, which is the ultimate source of data. On that I can immediately see only two things:

    1. They have an opt-out list, and from what I understand, they're scraping websites by default, providing mechanisms for you to block them or opt-out... If you're even aware they exist.
    2. According to their stats page, they have 313423 pages scraped from github.com. I doubt github has that many pages of non-user-generated content, so the question is... What data is going in there, who wrote it, and did anybody agree to that? What about other websites from those top domains, such as blogspot.com, wordpress.org, readthedocs.io? I doubt they got permission to use the 17175161 pages of content from blogspot they've scraped.

    So yeah, maybe there's a "good" model out there I'd actually accept, but I've seen "open" models being released, and I can't possibly check all of them, just checking the websites for one of the sources for one of the models took 20 minutes here, if I wanted to verify this properly I'd have to setup the tooling to query the terabytes of data for this source, and all others, and even there I'm not sure if I'd find answers.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (1 child)

    Okay, so you actually take issue with internet scraping itself? Let me get things straight, do you have a problem with LLMs themselves, or the data used to train them? It seems like an obvious "Yeah, the data is the issue," to me but I want to clarify because I HAVE seen the other stance before.

    And if it is just the data, does that mean your REAL issue is the act of internet scraping itself? Because then you're also going to have to condemn every search engine and indexing algorithm in the world and go back to pre-indexing days when we just typed in the URL as the only method.

    Or is it the monetisation that you don't like? Because then the models I provided should be exempt because they're 100% free.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago

    It's not as simple as one singular aspect, and I don't know if I might've been fine with it if it was actually open and free from the start. But where I draw the line on ethics is with the usage of data without permission to create models intended to reproduce the data - which means laundering the data, reproducing the patterns from it to create competition/replacements for the people who made the creative work it's trained on.

    The monetization is a more complicated aspect, because it is also fact that at this point the big GenAI companies are dominating the market and consuming an unreasonable amount of resources to grow, and with that any use of LLMs is supporting that market. Using the services of those companies obviously supports them, publicly using LLMs supports the legitimacy of the market, and if the current trend continues, private use of selfhosted LLMs is making yourself dependent on them, and it sure seems like the tech market is doing its best to make the necessary hardware unavailable to people, meaning you're setting yourself up to be dependent on the companies in the future.

    But, that's the fun thing - this is a short explanation of my opinion, because this is a complex topic, and I'm not writing this out every time, and people wouldn't read it. My specific opinion is that governments need to catch up on copyright law, and hopefully GenAI is a bubble that bursts soon. If anti-GenAI sentiments become more widespread, maybe it'll happen. If not, then I'll have to eventually give up on my morals, but for now I can only hope it doesn't come to that.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 17 points 2 months ago (4 children)

    Largely agree. AI isn't going away; the left needs to take a page out of Sanders and advocate instead for nationalizing and regulating instead.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    Let's not confuse "the left" with whatever the current blind AI hate is.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 9 points 2 months ago

    I've literally been accused of being anti-human for trying to differentiate AI from the genuine harms it is being used for. There was one post where scientists had used a specialized LLM to create novel bacteriophages, and the comments were freaking out, claiming it was super-bugs and a new bioweapon...

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 2 months ago* (1 child)

    I don't think AI is anti-ethical or fascist per se. As many argued here, you can run it locally, you can train it on public data sets, etc.

    But there is another problem that is hardly mentioned. Let's call it a culturally negative feedback loop. AI is different from any other tool because it pretends to be an universal tool. It can generate music, pictures, videos, text, code. If we as a society outsource all those skills to automatisation, there's a real danger we unlearn those skills.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 23 points 2 months ago (6 children)

    I hate clankers as much as the next person, and providing money to war profiteering should obviously be avoided with great priority...

    But really? This is a wild comparison on so many levels. There are ways to use AI ethically, and there are ways to use it unethically, amd blinding yourself to that conversation is willful ignorance.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 2 months ago* (1 child)

    This should be obvious.

    Using AI to detect cancer early? Using AI to help find new beneficial medications? Using AI to advance materials science? Great! Things like these are absolutely what we need more of.

    Using AI to steal massive amounts of content made by non-consenting parties and regurgitate for AI corp profits? Using corporate algorithms to manipulate output to generate results favoring corporate billionaire owners economically and politically? Using it to make sexual photos of non-consenting women and underage girls? Using it to find ways to deny coverage, strip more money from people, wage war, attack intelligence and discourse, and remove accountability for corporate owners? Fuck that.

    Guess which ones the oligarchs prefer.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 2 months ago

    Well said! It's almost as if the conversation is being intentionally moved to 'YES AI' (sexy future times) vs 'NO AI (Luddite, dumb, regressive) instead of what every conversation is actually about, which is that morality should never be allowed to be determined by wealth.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 2 months ago

    AI != LLM != LLM chatbots.

    But in this case the use of "AI" means "LLM chatbots", nobody is really making an argument against other kinds of AI, like what is used to detect cancer (there is an argument to be made about having a black box in a medical context, but this is not the place for it).

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago

    Absolutely. I've softened my stance a lot recently. I think local llm are fine. The data has already been crunched the books destroyed and the water used so I may as well play with one locally. If you set realistic uses as a tool its fine. Need a quick script great at that. Summarize some notes, or search through them also great. Not really into image gen or anything else but anything helping me get dumb stuff out of the way for just myself its a W. I'm not down with using it for public facing stuff.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    Honestly I'd say it's a pretty apt comparison. Pledging to defend your rights while avoiding using anything labeled "AI" because fascists use it is about as smart as pledging to defend your rights without using guns because fascists use them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 2 months ago

    Remember that time Hitler didn't trust atomic bomb research because it was "Jew technology" that was awesome for the world.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago

    This post is a little silly. Weapons like swords, guns, etc are the original fascist weapons.

  • source
  • [–] 15 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    Fascists didnt invent AI, Gen AI or LLMs. They are just using them, selling and making money with it.

    Same with cars. Fascists didnt invent the car or EVs. They are just using them, selling and making money with it.

    But you wouldnt call someone out for driving with their car to a antifascist protest, would you?

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago (8 children)

    Aren't they taking a loss on every AI operation? Like a big loss. So use enough, especially free versions, and you will drive them to bankruptcy. Lol

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] [S] 6 points 2 months ago (5 children)

    They can just make more money to keep the bubble from popping. There is a limit to that but how much damage to the environment will they do before that point?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    If by make more money, you mean get more investment capital from the wealthy... they can. And those people who have their money in these companies when the bubble bursts will lose a very large portion of it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [S] 2 points 2 months ago

    That yes but also the government will print money for a bailout like they did for the automotives and banks years ago. But they can only do that once or twice. Too big to fail is still the rule of law in american echo gnomics.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 2 months ago*

    So no using guns either. Got it.

    Sometimes I think these are righties just trying to limit the left's ability to push back.

    PS the phone or pc you're using alongside the internet service in 99% of cases originates from inhumane and ostensibly fascist origins that rape the lands, use major server farms (data centers), and exploit cheap labor, and advances oligarchies. Better brick them, right..?

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago

    I've become a doomer when it comes to AI at this point. Even if we in the US stops the development of AI, China will push and improve the technology regardless and then overtime as every other country adopts it, we will be technologically behind. My only hope is that AI gets properly regulated, but we already opened pandora's box, it's not going away. I now better emphize with the people in the 1890s opposing machinery that automated their jobs though, since that's a similar position to where we are at. So yeah, I'm both a climate AND an AI doomer at this point

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago

    Batman The Dark Knight Returns is probably the best comic

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 2 months ago

    TIL that technology can have political opinions.

  • source
  • In a war where losing means living under fascism and imperialism, where we fight for freedom and our very right to exist, we need to consider every tool at our disposal—even those used by our oppressors.

    When they are willing to rig elections, run disinformation campaigns, and use violence and terror tactics on their own citizens, we can't afford to quibble over which tactics make us feel good. That's what it means to fight for our lives.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago

    Use tech or fund tech like Zig Programming language, Haiku OS , NetBSD which have Anti AI policies

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 2 months ago

    You can run you own models on your own computer using KolboldAI.

    There's nothing innately fascist with GAN and Neural Network technology.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    This “purism” is the reason why they keep winning. Letting only them using the most powerful tech humanity ever made is just like not voting for Harris because of Gaza. Look the mess we are now. How much we need to lose to stop this purism?

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    There is no such thing as "fascist technology". Technology is just a tool. It can be used for good or evil.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    The machine gun was an imperialist and fascist technology of oppression. But call it a Kalashnikov and it becomes a tool for liberation.

    Do not listen to neoliberal fuckai morons. Think for yourself what tools you can use or not. If machine generated AI slop is indistinguishable from real human "art", then it was never art but human slop to begin with. What generations of rom-coms and participation trophies does to a people's ego.

    Push for meaningful regulation of AI instead of endless whining and villifying people like e.g. non-capitalist china does: https://regulations.ai/regulations/china-summary

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago*

    China is capitalist this has been settled by Chinese capitalists claiming China is capitalist. It could be up for debate but the homelanders are almost definitely going to come out on top where .ml's are seen as reality challenged individuals. So while I agree with your first 2 sentences I am going to challenge your propaganda attempt. Oh does only a certain class get true capitalism?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago

    It is such a liberal thing to take a byproduct of capitalist exploitation and turn it into its own political expression

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago

    What about rockets? 🤔

  • source
  • [–] -1 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    "AI = fascist?" Come on, let's not dilute the term "fascist" to mean "anything I don't like." THAT kind of thinking is the weapon of the enemy!

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago

    LLM chatbots are designed to isolate you from the people around you, from other people online and from actual sources of knowledge, making it harder to build people power and actual community.

    It is pretty inherent to these chatbots too, as they are basically a replacement to search engine (which themselves were replacements to indeces), otherwise they don't serve a real purpose, that is to say there is no well defined problem it is a solution too.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -4 points 2 months ago (5 children)

    Guns and Muscles are fascist too! Fighting is fascist.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] [S] -3 points 2 months ago (4 children)

    Guns were invented literally thousands of years before fascism

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago

    I think there was probably one or two people in power with fascistic tenancies a bit before guns. Pretty sure you wouldn't have too much trouble finding a fascist in Mesopotamia. Anyone with a slave would qualify if you ask me. This whole thread and your arguments are pretty weak.

    Llms are useful, and they can help people against fascism. Certainly they are not used that way predominantly today.

    Looking forward to the downvotes. Till next time.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -9 points 2 months ago* (3 children)

    Yes, this is good. Keep doing everything you can to make yourselves weaker.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    to make yourselves weaker.

    Considering that reliance on AI weakens people's critical thinking skills, I'm curious what your reasoning is here.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

    Perhaps we're thinking of different things. I'm not talking about using it to do your homework or to read books for you.

    Practical example: I've been thinking about making my own programming language for 20 years. This year, I was able to. Did my thinking skills diminish this year when I did something I couldn't have been arsed to do over that long time?

  • source
  • parent
  • 133 comments in c/programmer_humor@programming.dev view that post