sourcehut is a network of useful open source tools for software project maintainers and collaborators, including git repos, bug tracking, continuous integration, and mailing lists.
And LLM translations have all the same political and ethical as coding
No, they don’t. As I said, machine translations make contributions more accessible to ESOL speakers (ie global majority populations) and can help reduce Eurocentrism. The reason why I said I think an exception should be made is specifically for ethical and political reasons.
A small fraction? I’m talking about the majority of people on Earth who are disadvantaged by English centrism.
And where did I say “it’s ok to burn the world”? I never specified any position on technology, but to be clear, I am a luddite, I don’t think modern tech is ecologically justifiable, and is built upon a foundation of slavery and ecological destruction. It is a separate question of a policy of a small software forge (which already runs on ecologically destructive hardware; the vast majority of emissions for modern tech come from the manufacture of the devices we’re using to talk now, from your own client device to the devices being used as servers to relay our messages) to allow or disallow AI translations. I do not think that our energy use is justifiable. Now LLMs use a comparable amount of energy to, say, AAA video games. I think this is a bad thing and video games should be more computationally efficient. Does that mean I support banning people from playing AAA video games? No, I don’t think that’s the way to address this problem. Questions of policy are separate questions to questions of technology; a technology can be bad without the solution being to ban it, because the effects of a ban are different to just getting rid of the banned technology.
Do you understand the meaning of the word “exaggeration”?
To recap:
I said: “LLM translations have all the same political and ethical issues as coding”
And you replied “No they don’t”
But then you went ahead writing paragraphs on their impact on the environment… which is THE ethical issue, regardless of the copyright issues or the potential benefits.
Yes, I said “no they don’t” because translation has the ethical implications of global inequality. Which, btw, climate change greatly exacerbates. I never said that LLMs don’t have environmental impacts if used for translation; I said they have additional ethical implications when used for machine translation. Which is true. I have my doubts that you are particularly concerned with tech ethics and global inequality given how flippant you have been about the real issue of exclusion of global majority populations just from things as simple as language choices.
No, they don’t. As I said, machine translations make contributions more accessible to ESOL speakers (ie global majority populations) and can help reduce Eurocentrism. The reason why I said I think an exception should be made is specifically for ethical and political reasons.
We’re talking past each other so let me point your attention to what I mean by exaggerating a bit:
You’re saying it’s ok to burn the world (which is one of the ethical problems with llms) so that a small fraction of hairless apes feels better.
A small fraction? I’m talking about the majority of people on Earth who are disadvantaged by English centrism.
And where did I say “it’s ok to burn the world”? I never specified any position on technology, but to be clear, I am a luddite, I don’t think modern tech is ecologically justifiable, and is built upon a foundation of slavery and ecological destruction. It is a separate question of a policy of a small software forge (which already runs on ecologically destructive hardware; the vast majority of emissions for modern tech come from the manufacture of the devices we’re using to talk now, from your own client device to the devices being used as servers to relay our messages) to allow or disallow AI translations. I do not think that our energy use is justifiable. Now LLMs use a comparable amount of energy to, say, AAA video games. I think this is a bad thing and video games should be more computationally efficient. Does that mean I support banning people from playing AAA video games? No, I don’t think that’s the way to address this problem. Questions of policy are separate questions to questions of technology; a technology can be bad without the solution being to ban it, because the effects of a ban are different to just getting rid of the banned technology.
Do you understand the meaning of the word “exaggeration”?
To recap:
I said: “LLM translations have all the same political and ethical issues as coding”
And you replied “No they don’t”
But then you went ahead writing paragraphs on their impact on the environment… which is THE ethical issue, regardless of the copyright issues or the potential benefits.
mmmmh suuuureee
Yes, I said “no they don’t” because translation has the ethical implications of global inequality. Which, btw, climate change greatly exacerbates. I never said that LLMs don’t have environmental impacts if used for translation; I said they have additional ethical implications when used for machine translation. Which is true. I have my doubts that you are particularly concerned with tech ethics and global inequality given how flippant you have been about the real issue of exclusion of global majority populations just from things as simple as language choices.