For those unaware, Linus Torvalds this year has deeply cast his lot with the hyperscale LLMs for development of Linux code, dismissing arguments that this is an abdication of responsibility over that code base.
For those unaware, Linus Torvalds this year has deeply cast his lot with the hyperscale LLMs for development of Linux code, dismissing arguments that this is an abdication of responsibility over that code base.
Which makes it about as politically agnostic as a computer. Technology doesn’t have morality.
I don’t know automated turrets that target children in Gaza sounds pretty immoral. I could say the baby skull seeking bullets them selves aren’t nessisarly immoral but its the use of said bullets that makes them evil, but I don’t see the need to make a distinction.
Algorithms that face book used for no reason other than to make you feel depressed to sell more ads feels pretty immoral too. Systems and tools developed to perpetuate slavery, is another one.
There’s so much technology that was explicitly made for evil intent that serves no purpose outside of its original intent, where I feel I can blanketly call it immoral.
I could nitpick most of these, but it seems we don’t actually disagree here since if an “immoral” technology were to get a morally good or neutral use it’d suddenly be moral under your definition.
My point was some technologies are made in such a way that they can only be immoral, or was made in a way where the only use from said technology is to do as much damage as possible. I am not sure we are on the same page.
Maybe in 1000 years we will find a use for all the land mines that are in the ground after wars. Its not the mines themselves that are immoral, its the people that lay the mines that are evil. We should leave the mines because they might serve a valueable purpose later and suddenly start saving lives. Despite the fact that mines are known as the most destructive vindictive thing you can do to acivilian population. They are only made to harm people, and often innocent people generations later long detatched from the original conflict.
If there was a machine that launched baby corpses at our targets, and required the blood of virgins to run and was only used to psychologically traumatize anyone who seen it, would my point be more clear? I could argue that sure maybe the machine isn’t technically immoral if you don’t run it. But we all know why the machine was made for, and I don’t see any reason to try to make a distinction between who is immoral when it seems pretty straight forward.
Sorry I’m one of those insufferable well aclhuuually guys we are kind of on the same page and arguing over words and how to use them when I can barely spell.
You know what that’s a good point. I guess there are technologies with no plausible non-evil purpose (thinking of torture implements and the like here).
Technology use does though, and technology without use is… Nothing?
Sure, but that means that ultimately use is what decides morality, so who developed a certain product or technology doesn’t matter for using it.
Who developed it: no, probably not that much. Who is selling it/pushing it, absolutely. And users also inherently interact with those social and political structures, e.g. through working within a capitalist organisation (as most of us do), and influencing it’s evolution (as most of us do, though often unintentionally)
But products have, and in our society, can we separate technology from products?
No they don’t? Climate concerns aside, how is that even supposed to work?