In my opinion, being anti-AI or anti-LLM is much like being anti-chocolate. There are many good reasons to be anti-chocolate. It is very difficult to verify that a chocolate supply line does not include slave labor or child labor. I only know of one brand that even comes close. And the deforestation caused by farming can and does lead to climate change. Not to mention the addictive qualities and health effects of eating sugary candy.
It seems mostly bad and when you look at the numbers, I think we should all be against it. And yet, making these arguments tends to do very little to make people stop eating chocolate.
Yet, I could imagine a world where it's farmed sustainably, by people who are paid appropriately, and with proper guidance on nutrition and exercise, it could be consumed safely.
I have no problem with people saying they are anti-AI. But I'd just like to pause here to confirm whether maybe anti-AI is just our shorthand for anti-the-way-AI-is-right-now. Anti-the-companies-that-run-AI. I do not want noisy server farms taking up all the water of rural communities. I don't want all of our electricity to go towards LLMs that are already "intelligent" enough to tell us that the best most immediate way to prevent further climate change is to turn them off.
I'm not making this comment to promote one side or another. I'm just suggesting that we act strategically and try to be mindful about how polarization can appear from the outside. Being anti-AI likely persuades about as many people as being anti-chocolate. That is, very few. But if we could work towards more ethical AI, even if we don't plan to use it, just so our argument is more palatable to the masses, it could lower the use of AI overall.
So, I think it is worthwhile to get into the technical details of things like LLMs even if most of us here are fighting against such technologies. Just trying to add some nuance to a world that often feels way too polarized for me.
Reminds me of when I got my second ever flip phone, and while it was great with texts (which played cool data transmission sounds over nearby speakers) and it was the first one I had with a camera, the first-gen web browser they had on it simply took ages getting even an image to load over the cellular connection.
I was thinking, this is cool. I can actually web browse on my phone. Sort of. I figured the connection will get better over time and was generally optimistic about what a cell phone would someday be, but never did I think we'd be able to stream not just video but high-definition video over cell service like it's nothing. While I have a lot more experience and knowledge now, I've learned to hesitate before claiming anything is impossible.
That's the classic flaw with flood plane exemptions. The floods don't tend to care. Next time, if they want to be exempt from flooding, they need to get out the old fashioned map and Sharpie.
That's a great idea! Treating the children like perfectly spherical objects will let us calculate the flow of children through the bowling alley more like particles through a garden hose. Since we can accommodate many more children this way, let's expand the invitations to the entire school contacts list, with the new subject line, "Your child-sized balls are cordially invited!" The invitations are sent and your wife's travel plans have been amended to a one-day round trip starting and ending at the same airport to save on airfare costs. Is there anything else you need help with?
Guys, there are definitely NO Epstein files, but also, we shouldn't release the Epstein files that DON'T exist, because they were written by the radical left, so they must contain stuff that would help the left if released, so why didn't the left release them when they were in charge? Clearly because they don't exist.
Throwback to this interview where there was no hesitation promising to declassify 9/11 files, and JFK files, but on the Epstein files, "less so," because, "you don't want to affect people's lives if it's phony stuff in there." Because we all know Trump loves to think about the wellbeing of lots of people other than himself.
So anyway, let's not release the files that don't exist because they definitely don't contain phony stuff that would never incriminate certain people who definitely aren't Donald Trump.
K8s is better anyway, at least if you have the hardware for it. It's just slightly more complex to set up, but it sounds like you may already be over that hurdle.
If you want a new technology to have to resist dropping everything to play with, may I suggest CUE? Stands for Configure, Unify, Execute. If you're not familiar, it's a json superset that turns json-style data into networks of programmed relationships. Like if you want to send the same deployment to three different clusters, which have differently configured CD components, and (for example) you want to vary the databases or message queues you use based on the core microservice or what else has been deployed in the cluster, you can build out these relationships in CUE and merge them with another .cue module that defines how to render files for each destination cluster, automatically producing all yaml manifests that you would otherwise have to write by hand.
But absolutely, do what you were going to get done today. It's not a cool technology at all, there's really no need to keep thinking about it.
Oh I get it now, the other k8s cluster IS the therapist. That's funny. And not at all an accurate description of my life. Anyway, I have a cronjob—I mean appointment—to get to.
In my opinion, being anti-AI or anti-LLM is much like being anti-chocolate. There are many good reasons to be anti-chocolate. It is very difficult to verify that a chocolate supply line does not include slave labor or child labor. I only know of one brand that even comes close. And the deforestation caused by farming can and does lead to climate change. Not to mention the addictive qualities and health effects of eating sugary candy.
It seems mostly bad and when you look at the numbers, I think we should all be against it. And yet, making these arguments tends to do very little to make people stop eating chocolate.
Yet, I could imagine a world where it's farmed sustainably, by people who are paid appropriately, and with proper guidance on nutrition and exercise, it could be consumed safely.
I have no problem with people saying they are anti-AI. But I'd just like to pause here to confirm whether maybe anti-AI is just our shorthand for anti-the-way-AI-is-right-now. Anti-the-companies-that-run-AI. I do not want noisy server farms taking up all the water of rural communities. I don't want all of our electricity to go towards LLMs that are already "intelligent" enough to tell us that the best most immediate way to prevent further climate change is to turn them off.
I'm not making this comment to promote one side or another. I'm just suggesting that we act strategically and try to be mindful about how polarization can appear from the outside. Being anti-AI likely persuades about as many people as being anti-chocolate. That is, very few. But if we could work towards more ethical AI, even if we don't plan to use it, just so our argument is more palatable to the masses, it could lower the use of AI overall.
So, I think it is worthwhile to get into the technical details of things like LLMs even if most of us here are fighting against such technologies. Just trying to add some nuance to a world that often feels way too polarized for me.