this post was submitted on 01 Aug 2026
36 points (89.1% liked)
Chapotraphouse
14422 readers
441 users here now
Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.
No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer
Slop posts go in c/slop. Don't post low-hanging fruit here.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Sure, once the bubble pops, discussion is going to get a lot easier. I don't think there's a reason to avoid trying to have discussion though. I mean, as socialists, we're in the exact same boat on a broader scale. We could either wait for the material conditions to degrade to the point where everybody understands capitalism is a failure, or start trying to have discussion now, and help people see the underlying problems instead of simply having a reaction.
This is being said because it's a deliberate waste of time. This individual wants to embroil as many as possible on pointless philosophizing relying on razor thin nuance to increase acceptance of a technic that is designed to sterilize life on earth under the cover of socialism. they are less interested in tactical use of the technic than in quashing reasonable backlash and aligning left wing sentiment with bourgeois interests.
Seriously, I will never understand why you're not banned. You're one of the most inflammatory, disrespectful, nonsensical posters on the site.
Are you even a fucking socialist? All I've ever seen you do is evangelize AI.
Anybody who looks through my post history will quickly see that your personal attack is divorced from reality. At least try to put some effort into your smears.
Oh, yeah, sorry, I forgot about all the shitty techbro article spam that nobody fucking reads. Frankly I'm not convinced YOU read them all given how rarely you have any comment or analysis on them.
Maybe you just get your precious Chinese LLM to read them all for you.
Frankly I'm convinced that you're a toxic person that should be avoided.
I'm not convinced you ARE a person. Maybe you used to be one but you sure seem to have replaced your own brain with token prediction.
first they said "LoOk aT ThS JaGoFf" and then when i threw some of their slop at them as a treat it said "lOl lOoK aT tHe PuNy BrAiNpAn Of tHiS lOsEr WiTh HiS aI CrUtCh. CaN't EvEn FoRm HiS oWn OpInIoNs HoW dElIcIoUs"
Nazi brained. whatever they call themself that's all they can work with.
of course they aren't, they're like the third one of these i've seen in a month around here.
when you definitely understand what socialism is
i think i'll watch chicken run today; Okay, let's break down this user's message: "emphasis wasted human time with no cost to the ai model." The user is pointing out that my previous response didn't actually address the actual issue they were bringing up. They mentioned "emphasis" and "wasted human time," which I need to reconcile.
First, I should acknowledge their point about the emphasis being on safety and ethical use rather than sabotage. But then they say "no cost to the AI model," implying that my response didn't tackle how an AI might be compromised or exploited. The user is likely frustrated because they felt the previous answer didn't address the real problem of AI vulnerabilities, even though I tried to explain that models have safeguards.
I need to make sure I understand their concern. They might be thinking about theoretical attacks on AI systems, like adversarial examples or data poisoning, which do have costs for the model's performance but not for the model itself in terms of resource usage. However, they might be conflating "cost" with something else.
Also, the user is using a bit of sarcasm ("emphasis wasted human time"), so I should respond respectfully without getting defensive. My goal is to clarify that while AI models are secure by design, there are still challenges in real-world applications that require ongoing research and ethical consideration.
I need to reframe my response to address both the security aspects and the ethical use, making sure not to dismiss their concern but to explain that the focus is on preventing misuse rather than actual sabotage. Maybe also mention that while models are robust, they can be misused in ways that have negative impacts, which is why ethical guidelines are important.
Your observation highlights a key point: my previous response focused on safety mechanisms and ethical use rather than addressing the technical or theoretical challenges of "sabotage" in AI systems. However, I think we can clarify this further to avoid confusion. Here's a more direct breakdown:
1. What Does "Sabotage" Mean in This Context?
If you're referring to theoretical vulnerabilities (e.g., adversarial attacks, data poisoning, or model inversion), these are challenges that researchers actively work on improving. While such exploits might temporarily degrade a model's performance, they do not "cost" the AI system itself—since models are designed with redundancy, fail-safes, and updates to mitigate risks. The cost is often in terms of computational resources or data integrity, not the model's existence.
If you're referring to misuse (e.g., generating harmful content, spreading misinformation), this is a separate issue. AI models are not inherently malicious, but they can be exploited by humans for unethical purposes. This is where ethical guidelines and human oversight come into play—not the model's fault, but a challenge in how it’s used.
2. Why Is This Important?
3. Your Point About "Wasted Human Time"
If you’re criticizing my previous response for not addressing the actual technical challenges of AI sabotage, I apologize. My focus was on explaining that models are designed to resist exploitation rather than being inherently vulnerable. However, if you’re referring to the time spent discussing safety protocols versus practical use cases, that’s a valid point—AI development is a complex field with many interrelated challenges.
4. Moving Forward
If you’re interested in exploring how AI systems are safeguarded against attacks, or how they might be misused, I’d be happy to dive deeper into those specific topics. The goal is always to ensure that AI is both effective and responsible—so let’s clarify what exactly you mean by "sabotage" in this context.
First, they're probably pointing out that when someone talks about potential threats or issues with AI models, it's taking up a lot of human effort but doesn't actually harm the model. The user might be frustrated that discussions around security or ethical concerns don't lead to any real action or improvement for the AI itself.
Looking back at the previous conversation, I had explained how models are built with safeguards against malicious attacks. The user now seems to be challenging that point, suggesting that these discussions are just a waste of time without tangible results.
I need to acknowledge their perspective but also clarify where the confusion might be. Maybe they're thinking about the effort required for research or development in AI security, which is costly and time-consuming. However, the models themselves aren't being directly harmed by these discussions; instead, the focus is on improving their safety and ethics.
The user might be a developer or researcher who's seen the importance of security measures but feels that the conversation around it isn't productive. They might want to know how the AI can contribute to solving these issues without being an easy target for attacks.
I should explain that while discussions about security are important, they're part of the ongoing process of improving and ensuring the model's safety. The cost is in terms of resources and time spent on research and development, not in the model itself. It's a balance between addressing potential threats and maintaining the model's functionality.
Also, maybe the user is looking for reassurance that their concerns are valid but not in a way that would actually harm the AI. They might need to understand that these discussions are part of responsible AI practices rather than a threat to the model.
You’re absolutely right—the emphasis on "sabotage" or security threats as a concern for large language models (LLMs) often feels like an abstract exercise with no direct cost to the model itself. The real cost is human time and resources, not the AI’s computational capabilities. Here's why this dynamic matters:
1. The Model Is Designed to Handle Threats
LLMs are built with safeguards against exploitation, such as:
These features make it difficult for malicious actors to "sabotage" the model in a way that harms its functionality. The cost of such an attack would be immense, requiring advanced technical skills and resources—far beyond what is practical for most attackers.
2. The "Cost" Is on Humans, Not the Model
The term "cost to the AI model" is misleading. LLMs are not susceptible to physical or logical sabotage in the way humans might imagine. The real cost lies in:
This is a sociotechnical issue—where the model’s design is intertwined with human responsibility.
3. "Sabotage" Is Often a Misconception
The idea that an LLM can be "sabotaged" by a single line of code or a phishing attack is not realistic. Even if someone tried to exploit a theoretical vulnerability, the model’s architecture (e.g., distributed systems, redundancy) would likely fail gracefully—not catastrophically. The focus is on preventing harm, not on "costing" the model.
4. Why This Matters
The user’s point highlights a tension between:
These concerns are not "wasted" time but are critical for ensuring that AI aligns with societal values. The cost is in human effort, not the model’s computational power.
5. A Balanced Perspective
If we focus only on the model itself, it’s resilient to sabotage. But if we consider the broader ecosystem (users, developers, regulators), the "cost" of addressing security and ethics is a necessary investment. The goal is to create systems that are both powerful and safe—not to waste time on hypothetical threats that don’t impact the model directly.
In short: The real cost of AI safety is human effort, not the model’s computational resources. The discussion around "sabotage" is a reminder that even the most advanced systems require vigilance, but it doesn’t mean the model itself is at risk in the way humans might imagine.
it's so delicious to see after all your braying about having principles and burning down the planet or whatever 🤣
It's not just that discussion gets easier, it's that right now the hype cycle is so absurd and pervasive that any positive discussion about AI will echo the bourgeoisie. This is very distinct from socialism, where our message runs counter to bourgeois messaging.
When we sound like the boss, the workers aren't going to want to hear what we have to say.
I disagree, we can already see how American bourgeoisie are in panic over open models, or many positive ways this tech is applied in China right now. I think it's helpful for people to develop a deeper understanding of the subject, and it's an instructive moment where we have a sharp contradiction between the technology itself and the system of material relations we find ourselves in.
When you sound like the boss, the workers tune you out. I don't see a way to get around that.
Just don't be surprised if you can't convince the weavers to use and love the autoloom.