6 ms·
I have a feeling that comparing a safe, sustainable energy source to large language models is disingenuous. If you support LLMs and the field, you can just stat
by xydone 3mo ago
I have a feeling that comparing a safe, sustainable energy source to large language models is disingenuous. If you support LLMs and the field, you can just state it outright, without insincere comparisons.
- estearum 3mo agoObviously there are components of nuclear energy that are not intrinsically safe, which is why people freaked out about it
- adrians1 3mo agoIf you oppose LLMs and the field because of pure irrational instinct, like those people in the past, you can just state it outright, no need for complicated arguments.
- xydone 3mo agoYeah, that's also fine. However I am personally willing to side with the group which's arguments for the cause are environmental and societal impact over the one which's rebuttal to that is the fact we were wrong once 40 years ago. That's just me though.
- adrians1 3mo agoWe weren't wrong just once, 40 years ago. That's just one example, but the Luddites and doomers were wrong every time something new was invented. Check this out: https://x.com/PessimistsArc https://x.com/PessimistsArc
- estearum 3mo agoThis train of thought is hilariously rife with selection bias. There is an infinitely long list of technologies that "Luddites and doomers" tried to block and were thankfully successful in doing so. CFCs and ozone. Leaded gasoline. Thalidomide. Offensive bioweapons. I'm not claiming Luddites and doomers are always or usually right (they're often wrong), but your claim they were wrong every time is just total epistemological failure on your part.
- xydone 3mo agoLuddites, the group of people which famously were concerned about societal impact of a piece of technology? Right.
- hackable_sand 3mo agoYou made a strawman afraid of fire How much clown makeup do you guys put in your coffee?