I use Claude and Thaura for search in my daily life.
I use Claude as a rubber duck for coding. On occasion, I'll let CoPilot or Claude add a few lines of code directly.
I enjoy both uses. I don't feel guilty about either.
I use Claude and Thaura for search in my daily life.
I use Claude as a rubber duck for coding. On occasion, I'll let CoPilot or Claude add a few lines of code directly.
I enjoy both uses. I don't feel guilty about either.
I'd like to setup my own openwebui and ollama server at home sometime, but I haven't gotten around to it. I think it'd be nice to use open weight models instead of cloud services. But I'm doing ok otherwise.
@Musicaloris I'm not.
@evan Somehow I get the feeling you're trying to farm "OK, boomer" style responses 🤷🏻
I don't agree with many of the arguments against LLMs I see on the Fediverse.
LLM usage is not a GHG-intensive activity, especially compared to other everyday activities.
I don't use the term "stealing" for ideas, and I don't think it applies for LLM output.
I think that training LLMs on content to produce a model, then using that model to generate new content, is more akin to human learning than to verbatim copying.
I don't think that LLM output is a "derivative work" of the training data.
@davep That's OK, you don't have to.
@evan hmm, I'm not seeing anything like genuine equivalence between human learning and LLM statistical output based on training data.
I generally don't like LLM-generated images or video. I mostly don't like LLM-generated text -- it's usually flat, wordy, and full of business jargon. I don't use LLMs for either of these things.
I don't think the fact that LLMs make mistakes is a reason to not use them. It is a good reason to get reference links, and to cross-check any output.
I think that using LLMs to create text, images, video or code is an empowering technology for a lot of people. I think especially with code, it gives people who don't code and who've never had control over their computing experience more agency in their life and work. I think that's a net positive result.
I see a lot of strong anti-LLM takes on the Fediverse. I like some of them, and I don't like others. I sometimes respond if I think I can contribute to the conversation, but not always.
As a software engineer and engineering manager, I am mildly concerned for my employability in the future. However, I've had a good career, with much more luck than I deserve. People in my profession have been notably pampered and paid extremely well. As automation turns its Sauron-like eye to my own industry, it's hard to say with a straight face that we have been unfairly treated. I also think that there are, and will be for the foreseeable future, a lot of options for people who like to code.
I have a lot of good friends who are passionately anti-LLM. I also have some friends who are deeply into LLM usage, especially for creating software. I like both sets of friends and I want to stay friends with all of them.
@jeremiah A "derivative work" is a term of art in copyright law.
@evan I'm not sure how it could not be derivative. If the training data didn't slurp up all the repos on Github, it would not be able to generate something that looked an awful lot like a repo in Github.
If I trained a model on the collected literary works in the public domain and then asked it to produce a for loop written in Zig, no amount of prompting could make that happen.
On what grounds would that not be derivative?
@jeremiah That's OK.
@evan I understand that. I don't understand the argument where it's not derivative in either the literal and copyright senses. If you could not make something like x without using x as part of the process, it seems straightforward to say it is derivative.
@DoctorDNS too dangerous for what?
@evan it's just too dangerous.
@scanner do you have GPUs in your servers? This is something that's slowing me down.
@evan Since I already have my own servers at home I have been ramping up my research and playing with locally hosted LLM’s, one project (that is currently waiting for me to have more time to work on its next phase is: https://github.com/scanner/booklore
@Anibyl my previous job was building greenhouse gas inventories at the national, state and city levels.
Electricity generation is about 1/3 of global emissions; 3% of that would be less than 1% of global emissions for all data centres.
Even given the numbers you're sharing, and even if AI were responsible for all data centre energy use AI is not a major source of GHG emissions compared to transportation, cattle, cement production, deforestation or rice cultivation.
@evan Data doesn't support your belief.
“global electricity consumption for data centres is projected to double ... by 2030 ... representing just under 3% of total global electricity consumption”
“mainly driven by AI adoption”
https://www.iea.org/reports/energy-and-ai/energy-demand-from-ai
I'm sure you can find more online. Or even ask you agent of preference 🙄 Your example simply ignores the big picture, and narrows down the problem to someone's personal choice.
@Anibyl there are a lot of great sites that give a good accounting of global emissions. EDGAR has a pretty accessible site:
@Anibyl I appreciate that hearing that electricity use in data centres is going to double by 2030 sounds troubling. But doubling a small percentage of total greenhouse gas emissions gives a larger but still small percentage. Electricity production is also one of the GHG sources that's easiest to decarbonize.
@Anibyl it's absolutely whataboutism.
I started the conversation talking about relative contributions to global GHG emissions. That requires comparing different activities.
If you want to help stop climate change, skipping one hamburger does 2000 times more good than avoiding AI.
@evan This is whataboutism, Evan. Of course AI is not the biggest source of our emissions, but its contribution is significant. Like, it's close to a whole %? In the context of it 1) not being essential and 2) bringing other substantial negative side effects I don't understand how it's possible to say “nah it's ok”.
@morgan I haven't. I added it to my podcast episode queue and I'll let you know what I think.
@evan have you listened to this Grady Booch interview? I thought it was worthwhile.
If you do listen to it, I'd be curious to hear what you think about Grady's opinions. I am generally anti LLM, but it's more about the economics and cultural impact than it is the utility.
@DoctorDNS Disagree!
@evan folks who.have never coded should not be creating sloppy AI code. Just say NO.
I don't like the effect of AI/LLM scrapers on the open web. I think it's a serious problem. I think AI producers should commit to supporting robots.txt and other rate-limiting schemes, and to only using third-party data that has been acquired with similar support.
In my career, I have experienced several waves of technology advances that have made building software easier and opened the process up to more people: high-level programming languages, IDEs, HTML and the Web, low-code/no-code platforms. I don't think software development with LLMs is a discontinuous break with these other advances.
I didn't acknowledge in this discussion that the special role that software developers and other technologists have doesn't just mean extra privileges and higher wages for some people; it's a lifeline.
Some neuro-atypical, LGBTQ+, politically dissident, culturally non-conforming and simply weird and eccentric people have found a place in society where they are tolerated and even celebrated because of their ability to make and maintain software systems.
I don't think it's ever been a safe harbour, but it's been a handhold.
I think it's more than reasonable for people to question what the growth of AI-assisted and AI-generated software development and maintenance means for that handhold.
GNU social JP is a social network, courtesy of GNU social JP管理人. It runs on GNU social, version 2.0.2-dev, available under the GNU Affero General Public License.
All GNU social JP content and data are available under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license.