LLMs are tools and, like all tools, are more fit for some purposes than others
This is the whole problem, this take is disingenuous. Nobody who actually argues in good faith and knows what they’re talking about, argues that LLM isn’t a tool, or it’s something bigger than that. The argument that is being ignored is that LLM is a tool that inherently has downsides that are bringing more “bad” than it brings “good” when it’s useful. But proponents successfully argue that they can use LLM with some benefits, and act like they answered something, and any retaliation to that is unreasonable.
My favourite analogy is asbestos, and I say it as a huge disservice to asbestos. Asbestos is an amazing material that legit has many very important uses (way more than any LLM will ever have), but we’re not using it because we understand that no matter how great of a insulator it is, and how nice it looks as snow replacement on a movie set, and how wonderful it is in a cigarette filter, the supercancer it causes kinda nullifies all that.
I think asbestos is a good analogy, but I think your claims that the inherent downsides of LLMs outweigh any possible upsides are as-yet unfounded. I also think it’s kind of strange that you assume anyone who thinks otherwise is being disingenuous.
Maybe they are too dangerous for broad use, and we need to regulate them like asbestos, or uranium. Maybe they shouldn’t be used outside of a laboratory setting or by anyone who doesn’t have extensive training with how to interact with them safely. It seems pretty clear that Torvalds has decided they’re worth the downside, and while I don’t know if that’s a good call, I don’t think he’s operating in bad faith to the detriment of the kernel project. That doesn’t sound like something he would do.
I feel confident that I don’t have the expertise to say for certain one way or the other, though the experience I do have with software tools makes me think there’s probably an application for them where the downsides can be mitigated to the point where they become worthwhile. I think there’s probably some single-purpose or tailored application of LLMs related to textual analysis that don’t require the theft of the whole internet, and don’t require insane amounts of energy to run. I don’t think we have discovered them yet (at least I haven’t), but saying “this kind of software is only bad and can have no ethical uses, ever” seems premature.
This is the whole problem, this take is disingenuous. Nobody who actually argues in good faith and knows what they’re talking about, argues that LLM isn’t a tool, or it’s something bigger than that. The argument that is being ignored is that LLM is a tool that inherently has downsides that are bringing more “bad” than it brings “good” when it’s useful. But proponents successfully argue that they can use LLM with some benefits, and act like they answered something, and any retaliation to that is unreasonable.
My favourite analogy is asbestos, and I say it as a huge disservice to asbestos. Asbestos is an amazing material that legit has many very important uses (way more than any LLM will ever have), but we’re not using it because we understand that no matter how great of a insulator it is, and how nice it looks as snow replacement on a movie set, and how wonderful it is in a cigarette filter, the supercancer it causes kinda nullifies all that.
I think asbestos is a good analogy, but I think your claims that the inherent downsides of LLMs outweigh any possible upsides are as-yet unfounded. I also think it’s kind of strange that you assume anyone who thinks otherwise is being disingenuous.
Maybe they are too dangerous for broad use, and we need to regulate them like asbestos, or uranium. Maybe they shouldn’t be used outside of a laboratory setting or by anyone who doesn’t have extensive training with how to interact with them safely. It seems pretty clear that Torvalds has decided they’re worth the downside, and while I don’t know if that’s a good call, I don’t think he’s operating in bad faith to the detriment of the kernel project. That doesn’t sound like something he would do.
I feel confident that I don’t have the expertise to say for certain one way or the other, though the experience I do have with software tools makes me think there’s probably an application for them where the downsides can be mitigated to the point where they become worthwhile. I think there’s probably some single-purpose or tailored application of LLMs related to textual analysis that don’t require the theft of the whole internet, and don’t require insane amounts of energy to run. I don’t think we have discovered them yet (at least I haven’t), but saying “this kind of software is only bad and can have no ethical uses, ever” seems premature.