2026-10-30 10:19 UTC
Replies (2)
-
@torb@hachyderm.io 2026-10-30 14:41
@mbuss@fosstodon.org Your argument rests on “can’t compete without it” actually being true. I think it’s far from obvious that is the case. People just making pretty unreasonable assumptions about what LLMs can and in the future will able to do is what makes a lot of dicourse around LLMs on… shaky foundation truth wise. And I’m not saying they neccerily are completely useless, but I think it’s up to new technology to *prove it’s worth* before I believe it, not disprove it otherwise we should assume just about anything. Moreover, even if that premise of yours is (partially) true, there’s been plenty of technology that have to be regulated because of negative aspects overpowering the positive aspects (asbestos is a famous example). It’s not enough that LLMs work, they have to work *and* be worth the negative cost. And it sure seems like costs of LLMs seems to be racking up faster than the benefits, as of right now at least. (Though, to be clear, I fear we are severely lacking in adequate data when it comes to LLMs here as well.)
-
@torb@hachyderm.io 2026-10-30 14:47
@mbuss@fosstodon.org Anyway, to reply to your main point: I think it’s very valuable if at least some of the world stays LLM free. LLM usage this early in it’s cycle *is a huge risky experiement*, it’s prudent that not everyone participates in that. As for loosing rational voices, I know there are some more rational voices among LLM users already (though who are honest about the externalities and potential pitfalls). Many of the developers at Oxide come to mind. (Mind you I still disagree with them, but props where props are due, they are way more intellectually honest than the average LLM hyper fiend). I think it’s the other way around: demanding *everyone* participates in LLM-usage is what would lead to loss of rationality in the discourse as then everyone would be closer to thinking in the same paradigm.