• Lionir [he/him]@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is a false equivalence. Encryption only works if nobody can decrypt it. LLMs work even if you censor illegal content from their output.

    • 👁️👄👁️@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      You miss the point. My point is that if you want to have a consistent view point, you need to acknowledge and defend the harmful sides. Encryption can objectively cause harm, but it should absolutely still be defended.

      • Solar Bear@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        What the fuck is this “you should defend harm” bullshit, did you hit your head during an entry level philosophy class or something?

        The reason we defend encryption even though it can be used for harm is because breaking it means you can’t use it for good, and that’s far worse. We don’t defend the harm it can do in and of itself; why the hell would we? We defend it in spite of the harm because the good greatly outweighs the harm and they cannot be separated. The same isn’t true for LLMs.

        • 👁️👄👁️@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          We don’t believe that at all, we believe privacy is a human right. Also you’re just objectively wrong about LLMs. Offline uncensored LLMs already exist, and will perpetually exist. We don’t defend tools doing harm, we acknowledge it.

          • Solar Bear@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            We don’t believe that at all, we believe privacy is a human right.

            That’s just a different way to phrase what I said about defending the good side of encryption.

            Offline uncensored LLMs already exist, and will perpetually exist

            I didn’t say they don’t exist, I said that the help and harm aren’t inseparable like with encryption.

            We don’t defend tools doing harm, we acknowledge it.

            “My point is that if you want to have a consistent view point, you need to acknowledge and defend the harmful sides.”

            If you want to walk it back, fine, but don’t pretend like you didn’t say it.