101
Spell checker hallucinates Anaconda bug report (github.com)
submitted 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) by to c/fuck_ai@lemmy.world
72 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 7 points 1 month ago (2 children)

It's not racism because it's not about race. It's disrespect against something that isn't even alive. Even if it were alive it wouldn't be discrimination because we dislike the whole and not separate entities because of different characteristics. So I do not agree with you, and I'm not going to waste time clicking those links. I'm dismissing it as trolling because if you truly believe that it's offensive towards anybody else than the CEOs raking in the cash, that's completely mental. Or you have an "AI girlfriend", that's possible too, and also completely mental.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    I was going to disagree with them but roleplaying racism is exactly what it is. The way people say clanker is exactly the way people say nigg3r. You are choosing to be ignorant and launch ad-hominan attacks at someone trying to appeal to your senses. That is the kind of person you are. Regardless of what is true or false you are not qualified to having discussions of right or wrong in the first place.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    Lmao. It's derogatory. As it should be. The "racism" claim reeks of media influence. Racism is discrimination based on race. Discrimination is treating people different because of a different characteristic and does not apply to objects that are not alive. Derogatory is to belittle something.

    Calling this discussion stupid is also derogatory by the way. But that's what it is. Hence, clanker, a derogatory term for stupid things that should have no value. i.e. "AI"

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -4 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    What do you not get when I say it is NOT on AI's behalf that I'm getting offended? if anything, it's you lot that anthropomorphize it. Because talking about a non-human thing you hate doesn't require a slur. In fact a slur only makes sense for something you treat as a human.

    I can understand that the use case for "clanker" intended here is just a dismissive term for talking about LLMs. But that is not the way it is used in many of the memes that popularised it. These memes are not about LLMs. They are set in a future where robots act like people and are treated like black people in a segregated state. Memers are roleplaying segregated US or some other racist society, just switching black people for robots, in what is clearly as thinly veiled exercise at racism. You don't have to trust me or watch the video essay, just look at tghe knowyourmemes page that describes it in a neutral tone. That is what this specific word is tied to. I don't mind other equally dissmissive words like "slop-machine" or "slop-generator", because they aren't used in this way. These are words actually made to refer to LLMs by describing what they do.

    But using the word "Clanker" will always conjure up thoughts of the type of content that popularised it, even if that is not the intention.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago* (1 child)

    Imagine if a robot was walking down the street holding a bag of something heavy and a mother and child walked past at the same time as the bag broke so the robot steps into the child trying to regain balance. A robot doesn't have the right to make that kind of mistake, in the same way a drunk person would not have the right to make that mistake. But also in the same way a black person would not be allowed to make the same mistakes as white people.

    So where is the line are robots allowed to mistaking walk into children because it will happen if they walk the streets with us? Already see videos of them kicking Chinese children... Which is arguably the organisers faults, which is why organisers won't let robots walk our streets.

    Maybe we should be actually be racist to robots if apartheid is objectively necessary? We are fenced off from robot machines in factories already right... Where is the line exactly?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    There are reasons to regulate machines that can harm human. There are reasons to ban heavy robots, and perhaps all robots from places where that kind of things could happen. There are reasons to ban some machines altogether if their existence is a threat. All rules of this sort apply not to the machines themselves, but to the manufacturers and/or users plus any person with agency in this matter. Just as if someone drove a car off road into a children's park, it is the driver who is at fault.

    None of this requires or justifies recycling racist tropes or rhetoric. Even if you chose to burn a delivery robot in protest, which could be justified, there would still be no need to call it a clanker. And doing so in advance sounds like you're yearning for a victim that is acceptable to oppress and to call slurs.

    You using terms of apartheid means already projecting yourself into a hypothetical future where robots are similar to humans and the separation between them and us is artificial and enforced. Such a future isn't desirable, creating such a machine would be cruel for the machine first and foremost; and if a machine truly had human consciousness, I believe we should either shut it down and destroy it immediately or give it the same rights as humans; any other option would be literal slavery. But we are far from this point. I kinda think many of the current "AIs" should be shut down and destroyed, but not for that reasons. These robots aren't aware, have no agency, and there is no reason to talk about them as if they were humans who somehow deserved subhuman status.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago

    I think you approach the problem wrong. We are already segregated from robots for safety reasons.

    hypothetical future where robots are similar to humans and the separation between them and us is artificial and enforced.

    This sounds perfectly fine to me. I can see your points but if you cannot yourself draw a line in the sand I'm not going to take your seriously.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent