AI is a tool, just like other tools we use.
This argument has, to me, always reeked of naivety. Heroin is a tool, but it has clear ethical implications, and we make attempts as a society to manage those. So is nuclear, and a particularly relevant one, since many leading AI figures have officially and explicitly stated AI is as dangerous as nuclear weapons. There are countless other examples of “tools” that require moral judgement (all of them, really).
I think Linus is being naive, and given his position of power, irresponsible.
And no, AI isn’t perfect.
I could write an essay about how much of an understatement, to the point of being wrong, this is. Many, far more capable than me, already have.
This is NOT some kind of “social warrior” project, never has been, and never will be.
No, of course it’s not, but he seems to be treating it like ethics and context are for children.
It makes me worried for the Linux project. Not that he’s willing to use AI, but that this is how he sees it. This is a learning experience for me.
I’m reminded of this quote that, to be honest I don’t really understand, but feels relevant
Our conventional response to all media, namely that it is how they are used that counts, is the numb stance of the technological idiot. For the ‘content’ of a medium is like the juicy piece of meat carried by the burglar to distract the watchdog of the mind…The effects of technology do not occur at the level of opinions or concepts, but alter sense ratios or patterns of perception steadily and without any resistance.
– Marshall McLuhan, Understanding Media
The effects of technology do not occur at the level of opinions or concepts, but alter sense ratios or patterns of perception steadily and without any resistance.
This is a nice one.
And I see it happening right in front of my eyes at work. ‘How it is used’ will defer by the individual and specially for new tools, there will always be a generation of suffering.
Project Management, Jira/scrum etc had one (I’d say, still ongoing for most workplaces, that haven’t figured out the correct match). This one will too; probably more of it.
Once again, Linus steps in and delivers a reasonable take that cuts through the whole argument. It’s hard to imagine what Linux culture will be like without him.
But it’s not reasonable, and doesn’t “cut through the whole argument”. I expand here
Yeah without a single strong voice with implicit authority there’s really no telling what will happen i think
The discussion should stay technical.
Restricting discourse to a single realm makes it by definition a monoculture, which then intrinsically debases it to a fragile and brittle construct.
LLMs may well be useful and/or effective from narrowly myopic perspectives, but I’m yet to identify any which could legitimately be framed as justifiable or ethical.
It’s particularly galling given a fundamental aspect of how LLMs function is to incorporate myriad dimensions of input, yet to arrive at anything resembling a defence requires cherry picking arguments.