Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   Andrew (Television Executive) (ajroach42@retro.social)'s status on Monday, 02-Sep-2024 23:54:24 JST Andrew (Television Executive)

   Jesus, even NaNoWriMo has decided to get it wrong for no good reason.

   • Embed this notice
     mnl mnl mnl mnl mnl (mnl@hachyderm.io)'s status on Monday, 02-Sep-2024 23:54:11 JST mnl mnl mnl mnl mnl

     in reply to

     • Sam Whited

     @ajroach42 @sam Ironically, I believe the only profession that is legitimately at threat (in the long run) is software developers as they are today (something I both embrace and also makes me anxious about what will become of people in the same profession as me).

   • Embed this notice
     mnl mnl mnl mnl mnl (mnl@hachyderm.io)'s status on Monday, 02-Sep-2024 23:54:12 JST mnl mnl mnl mnl mnl

     in reply to

     • Sam Whited

     @ajroach42 @sam I also refused two offers from openai with life-changing amount of money, I feel you. Discussion about what consent means in building training corpuses is out of my depth, I am coming from a pretty punk rock "information wants to be free" approach, use libgen daily (and also spend 4 figures on books every month), and see the situation a bit similar to say, my lithium batteries, except that here I can't even quantify the physical harm.

     Blaise Pabón - controlpl4n3 repeated this.
   • Embed this notice
     mnl mnl mnl mnl mnl (mnl@hachyderm.io)'s status on Monday, 02-Sep-2024 23:54:13 JST mnl mnl mnl mnl mnl

     in reply to

     • Sam Whited

     @ajroach42 @sam But is the core of the issue then the fact that we don't know what data and models prowritingaid is using, or the fact that they (I think genuinely) do so out of wanting to make writing more accessible?

     We can (easily, I see your point for sure) agree to disagree, and I apologize if I came in barging in a thread that was more for venting, but I do think of LLMs as assistive technology *and* see a lot of ableism/classism in the categorical rejection of LLMs I encounter.

   • Embed this notice
     Andrew (Television Executive) (ajroach42@retro.social)'s status on Monday, 02-Sep-2024 23:54:13 JST Andrew (Television Executive)

     in reply to

     • Sam Whited
     • mnl mnl mnl mnl mnl

     @mnl @sam

     I spent 5 years of my life working for a company that trained many LLMs. I don't have to know which models they're using to know that it would be basically impossible for them to have done so in an ethical fashion, and if they had done so, it would be the first and only thing they said about their work.

     (Because they'd have spent hundred of millions of dollars to do it.)

     I'm very familiar with the field. I make a lot less money now than I used to because I decided I couldn't participate in something as morally bankrupt as what I saw happening in AI.

     The field, as a whole, is built on plagiarism and ignoring consent and any positive outcomes that come from that have to be viewed in light of the toxic stew from which they are born.

     If they want to make writing more accessible, that's great. If they can do it in a way that doesn't abuse writers in the process, they have my blessing.

     I've seen no evidence that this is what is happening, and I have enough personal experience to believe that without evidence to the contrary, they are most likely engaging in a massive violation of consent.

   • Embed this notice
     Andrew (Television Executive) (ajroach42@retro.social)'s status on Monday, 02-Sep-2024 23:54:14 JST Andrew (Television Executive)

     in reply to

     • Sam Whited
     • mnl mnl mnl mnl mnl

     @mnl @sam Right.

     That's one of the only statements they've made on AI. It's not explicitly relevant in this context, but it's one of the only things they've said publicly, so it's all we have to go on.

     But they partnered with a company that sells an AI product that is almost certainly built on the exploitation of writers.

     And they are an organization that claims to champion writers.

     The article in question is pretty bad, and makes some bad faith assumptions and claims (including the awful headline that I somehow entirely missed) but the core of the issue remains.

   • Embed this notice
     mnl mnl mnl mnl mnl (mnl@hachyderm.io)'s status on Monday, 02-Sep-2024 23:54:15 JST mnl mnl mnl mnl mnl

     in reply to

     • Sam Whited

     @ajroach42 @sam I guess I am missing a big part of context then. I reacted indeed to that part, and already find the linked article pretty specious in its headline. Nowhere do I see that nanowrimo says not writing your novel with AI is classist/ableist (who would say that?) and I do agree with nanowrimo's statement, which is:

     ...

   • Embed this notice
     mnl mnl mnl mnl mnl (mnl@hachyderm.io)'s status on Monday, 02-Sep-2024 23:54:15 JST mnl mnl mnl mnl mnl

     in reply to

     • Sam Whited

     @ajroach42 @sam
     "NaNoWriMo does not explicitly support any specific approach to writing, nor does it explicitly condemn any approach, including the use of AI."

     and

     "We also want to be clear in our belief that the categorical condemnation of Artificial Intelligence has classist and ableist undertones, and that questions around the use of AI tie to questions around privilege. "

     I find this totally fine, and didn't find more linked in terms of criticism from the article linked.

   • Embed this notice
     Andrew (Television Executive) (ajroach42@retro.social)'s status on Monday, 02-Sep-2024 23:54:16 JST Andrew (Television Executive)

     in reply to

     • Sam Whited
     • mnl mnl mnl mnl mnl

     @mnl @sam But that's not what happened.

     I said Nanowrimo was doing something unethical and using disabled people as a shield for their actions, and you stepped in to shield nanowrimo from the consequences of their actions as a disabled person.

     It doesn't matter if AI makes a useful assistive tool in this particular context. What matters is that Nanowrimo has decided to behave unethically, and is using disabled people as an excuse to do so.

   • Embed this notice
     mnl mnl mnl mnl mnl (mnl@hachyderm.io)'s status on Monday, 02-Sep-2024 23:54:17 JST mnl mnl mnl mnl mnl

     in reply to

     • Sam Whited

     @ajroach42 @sam @forestine@sunny.garden You're doing the thing that I think is ableist here too. The debate around the ethics of building training corpuses is way out of my league, but I would certainly welcome models built on more nuanced approached than the pile or whatever.

     But, "And AI based technology is, in general, unreliable as an assistive technology because it is unreliable in general. It can absolutely be helpful occasionally" to me means that I somehow am not able to use something "unreliable"

   • Embed this notice
     mnl mnl mnl mnl mnl (mnl@hachyderm.io)'s status on Monday, 02-Sep-2024 23:54:17 JST mnl mnl mnl mnl mnl

     in reply to

     • Sam Whited

     @ajroach42 @sam It's to me akin to me telling a person on an electric wheelchair that wheelchairs are not as agile as a person on two legs and that the battery is using rare earth minerals of questionable provenance.

     Yes, valid, and also I shouldn't necessarily bring it up if people say they find wheelchairs useful. Maybe the better take is to build nicer wheelchairs, now that we see that they are useful.

   • Embed this notice
     Andrew (Television Executive) (ajroach42@retro.social)'s status on Monday, 02-Sep-2024 23:54:18 JST Andrew (Television Executive)

     in reply to

     • Sam Whited
     • mnl mnl mnl mnl mnl
     • forestine

     @mnl @sam @forestine Regardless of how they market the tool, unless they can clearly demonstrate that it was built with consent, then it absolutely was not. That's just the truth of the industry.

     And if they have somehow managed to build a useful AI tool that isn't built on plagiarism, there's still the problem of LLMs consuming significantly more power than basically anything else we do with computers. Boiling the oceans, as it were.

     I can certainly understand having an emotional reaction if you find that these tools provide a genuine assistive value to you, and you see them being criticized. I think a lot of that criticism does assume that the assistive argument is made in bad faith, not because it can't be true, but because it is used as a distraction from the actual issues at hand.

     AI as assistive tech is used as a red herring by companies looking to launder their own unethical behaviors. The fact that it is also occasionally truly useful as an assistive technology doesn't negate the rest of the criticisms leveled against it.

     (And AI based technology is, in general, unreliable as an assistive technology because it is unreliable in general. It can absolutely be helpful occasionally, but at what cost?)

   • Embed this notice
     Andrew (Television Executive) (ajroach42@retro.social)'s status on Monday, 02-Sep-2024 23:54:19 JST Andrew (Television Executive)

     in reply to

     • Sam Whited
     • mnl mnl mnl mnl mnl
     • forestine

     @mnl @sam @forestine

     The company with which nanowrimo has partnered appears to operate using services built on plagiarism and without consent.

     It's possible that I've misunderstood their business model (or that I'm just generally biased against the AI industry as one built on plagiarism and the violation of consent) but I didn't see evidence to the contrary.

     NaNoWriMo are defending this decision by pointing out the potential assistive benefits of AI.

     I'm not here to argue against those benefits. I've seen people receive a big confidence boost from working with AI assistive tools (and I've seen people get themselves in to a lot of trouble when those AI assistive tools malfunctioned in ways they did not notice, but that's neither here nor there.)

     I am here to argue against a creative organization which is focused on highlighting individual creativity promoting a suite of services built on plagiarism, and then hiding behind disability and nuerodiversity to shield themselves from criticism.

     If I've misunderstood the organization at hand, and they have managed to build AI powered services that are not centered on plagiarism and the violation of consent, that's wonderful. WriMo, in defending themselves, should perhaps lead with that instead of trying to use people with disabilities and neurodiversity as human shields.

     I hope that we can agree that consent is important, plagiarism is generally not great, and NaNoWriMo should center an ethical argument, if they have one, and not use disabled people as a shield from criticism if they do not.

   • Embed this notice
     mnl mnl mnl mnl mnl (mnl@hachyderm.io)'s status on Monday, 02-Sep-2024 23:54:19 JST mnl mnl mnl mnl mnl

     in reply to

     • Sam Whited
     • forestine

     @ajroach42 @sam @forestine There is certainly a lot of criticism are how training corpuses are built, but I don't see that company promoting their product as a plagiarism tool or a tool to replace writers, and instead clearly design and position it as a writing aid.

     I personally did react (I have my own chips on my shoulder) because as you might have seen, the mere fact that I mentioned that I agree that AI criticism can have undertones of ableism and classism got me... blocked.

   • Embed this notice
     mnl mnl mnl mnl mnl (mnl@hachyderm.io)'s status on Monday, 02-Sep-2024 23:54:20 JST mnl mnl mnl mnl mnl

     in reply to

     • Sam Whited
     • forestine

     @ajroach42 @sam @forestine
     The articles mentions "AI criticism often has undertones of classism and ableism" and yeah, I *totally* see that. It's almost impossible say on mastodon to bring up #LLMs and how they help me with my ADHD/autism brain and not get responses invalidating that.

     3/3

   • Embed this notice
     mnl mnl mnl mnl mnl (mnl@hachyderm.io)'s status on Monday, 02-Sep-2024 23:54:21 JST mnl mnl mnl mnl mnl

     in reply to

     • Sam Whited
     • forestine

     @ajroach42 @sam @forestine I can see that. I know plenty of writers who have to *hide* because they are using AI tools. I benefit so much from AI tools due to (at least that's what I can trace it to) my neurodivergence. There are plenty of uses of text models that don't entail "ripping off other artists work".

     1/

   • Embed this notice
     mnl mnl mnl mnl mnl (mnl@hachyderm.io)'s status on Monday, 02-Sep-2024 23:54:21 JST mnl mnl mnl mnl mnl

     in reply to

     • Sam Whited
     • forestine

     @ajroach42 @sam @forestine
     Similarly, I see at meetups and when mentoring online so many less privileged kids benefit from learning tech with LLMs and achieving things they never thought they could do. Being assisted gives them the impulse and confidence necessary to continue putting in the actual work and in fact allows me to mentor them towards fundamentals that much more quickly.

     2/

   • Embed this notice
     Andrew (Television Executive) (ajroach42@retro.social)'s status on Monday, 02-Sep-2024 23:54:22 JST Andrew (Television Executive)

     in reply to

     • Sam Whited

     @sam They appear to have gone all in on AI, and are claiming that any concerns about AI are invalid because of classism and ableism?

     or at least that's what I took away from the article being shared today.

     https://pivot-to-ai.com/2024/09/02/nanowrimo-gets-ai-sponsor-says-not-writing-your-novel-with-ai-is-classist-and-ableist/

   • Embed this notice
     Sam Whited (sam@social.coop)'s status on Monday, 02-Sep-2024 23:54:23 JST Sam Whited

     in reply to

     @ajroach42 Context? I see they have an announcement on their site about closing the forums and other places where minors may be present and doing background checks, so I assume there was some sort of harassment going on, but I can't seem to find any details about it?

   • Embed this notice
     mnl mnl mnl mnl mnl (mnl@hachyderm.io)'s status on Wednesday, 04-Sep-2024 14:45:56 JST mnl mnl mnl mnl mnl

     in reply to

     • Sam Whited

     @ajroach42 @sam
     My own more articulated criticism (but I'm really out of my depth) around the training data is:

     - noone knows wtf is in it, and the companies don't either. Just requiring the companies to lay open their datasets would put a proper damper on things
     - the labor for the reinstruct pass is based on gig economy and outsourced. This is where I see opensource communities being able to *crush* the big players at their game

   • Embed this notice
     mnl mnl mnl mnl mnl (mnl@hachyderm.io)'s status on Wednesday, 04-Sep-2024 14:45:57 JST mnl mnl mnl mnl mnl

     in reply to

     • Sam Whited

     @ajroach42 @sam doesn't that book actually support more my side of the argument?

     As I understand the criticism around consent/plagiarism is that the training corpus for the pretraining comes from big piles of relatively indiscriminately scraped data including copyrighted works.

     ...

     Blaise Pabón - controlpl4n3 repeated this.
   • Embed this notice
     mnl mnl mnl mnl mnl (mnl@hachyderm.io)'s status on Wednesday, 04-Sep-2024 14:45:58 JST mnl mnl mnl mnl mnl

     in reply to

     • Sam Whited

     @ajroach42 @sam I was more using it as a signifier of my roots in hacker/warez/cracking groups :)

     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_wants_to_be_free (sorry if you were aware).

     And yes we disagree on that core assumption, and also that doesn't mean we can't have interesting and mutually nourishing conversations around it, because I think a fair amount of our values still overlap (I got a lot of your zines! :} )

   • Embed this notice
     Andrew (Television Executive) (ajroach42@retro.social)'s status on Wednesday, 04-Sep-2024 14:45:58 JST Andrew (Television Executive)

     in reply to

     • Sam Whited
     • mnl mnl mnl mnl mnl

     @mnl @sam I'm familiar with the roots of the phrase, I just think it's being misapplied in this context (and, again, information doesn't want anything. It has no agency. What do people want?)

     I was paraphrasing Doctorow's Information Doesn't Want to be Free, which I think is a pretty great text and I would love to see updated for the era of the LLM.

     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_Doesn't_Want_to_Be_Free

   • Embed this notice
     Andrew (Television Executive) (ajroach42@retro.social)'s status on Wednesday, 04-Sep-2024 14:45:59 JST Andrew (Television Executive)

     in reply to

     • Sam Whited
     • mnl mnl mnl mnl mnl

     @mnl @sam

     I can't subscribe to "information doesn't want to be free" as a statement or as a "punk" ideology.

     Information doesn't want anything, information doesn't have agency. People want to be free.

     Part of personal freedom is consent.

     LLMs as they exist today were built without consent.

     But I suppose this reveals the fundamental disagreement at the core of this conversation. We have different ideas of what is harmful and different tolerances for harm.

     Thanks for chatting.