Instance banned from awful.systems for debating the groupthink

Post in !techtakes@awful.systems attacks the entire concept of AI safety as a made-up boogeyman
I disagree and am attacked from all sides for "posting like an evangelist"
I give citations for things I thought would be obvious, such as that AI technology in general has been improving in capability compared to several years ago
Instance ban, "promptfondling evangelist"

This one I'm not aggrieved about as much, it's just weird. It's reminiscent of the lemmy.ml type of echo chamber where everyone's convinced it's one way, because in a self-fulfilling prophecy, anyone who is not convinced gets yelled at and receives a ban.

Full context: https://ponder.cat/post/1030285 (Some of my replies were after the ban because I didn't PT Barnum carefully enough, so didn't realize.)

47 comments

YDI
They have literally 1 rule in the sidebar, and you did break it, so eh. Your source is also someone who says "my career is very real, please continue paying me", which is exactly the wrong thing to post.
- One of my sources was a paper on arxiv, the other was an academic on YouTube. When I cited the paper on arxiv, sort of confused that I had to come up with a citation for the idea "AI is getting more powerful as time goes on," the person had asked for even a single example of an LLM gaining the ability to do something as if that was some gotcha question, was replaced by a different person swearing "literally" the opposite of the paper I just showed him.
  Maybe you have a point about the debate rule. It seems that community is not for that, it's for being an echo chamber and they like it that way. I notice that none of the people who were debating against me got banned.

I am not sure if I read the correct thread, but I personally didn't find your arguements convincing, although I think a full ban is excessive (at least initially).
Keep in mind that I do use local LLM (as an elaborate spell-checker) and I am a regular user of ML based video upscaleling (I am a fan of niche 80s/90s b-movies).
Forget the technical arguments for a seconds. And look at the social-economic component behind US-style VC groups, AI companies, and US technology companies in general (other companies are a separate discussion).
It is not unreasonable to believe that the people involved (especially the leadership) in the abovementioned organizations are deeply corrupt and largely incapable of honesty or even humanity [1]. It is a controversial take (by US standards) but not without precedent in the global context. In many countries, if you try and argue that some local oligarch is acting in good faith, people will assume you are trying (and failing) to practise a standup comedy routine.
If you do hold a critical attitude and don't buy into tedious PR about "changing the world", it is reasonable to assume that irrespective of the validity of "AI safety" as a technical concept, the actors involved would lie about it. And even the concept was valid, it is likely they would leverage it for PR while ignoring any actual academic concepts behind "AI safety" (if they do exist).
One could even argue that your arguementation approach is an example of provincialism, group-think and generally bad faith.
I am not saying you have to agree with me, I am more trying to show a different perspective.
[1] I can provide some of my favourite examples if you like, I don't want to make this reply any longer.
- I’m not saying that any of what you just said is not true. I’m saying that all of that can be true, and AI can still be dangerous.
  
  That's not what we are discussing though. We are discussing whether aweful.systems was right or wrong in banning you. Below is the title of your post:
  Instance banned from awful.systems for debating the groupthink
  I will note that I don't think they should be this casual with giving out a bans. A warning to start with would have been fine.
  An argument can be made that you went in to awful.systems with your own brand of groupthink; specifically complete rejection of even the possibility that we are dealing with bad faith actors. Whether you like it or not, this is relevant to any discussion on "AI safety" more broadly and that thread specifically (as the focus of the linked article was on Apollo Research and Anthropic and AI Doomerism as a grifting strategy).
  You then go on to cite a YT video by "Robert Miles AI Safety", this is a red flag. You also claim that you can't (or don't want to) provide a brief explanation of your argument and you defer to the YT video. This is another red flag. It is reasonable for one to provide a 2-3 sentence overview if you actually have some knowledge of the issue. This is not some sort of bad faith request.
  Further on you start talking about "Dunning-Kruger effect" and "deeper understanding [that YT fellow has]". If you know the YT fellow has a deeper understanding of the issue, why can't you explain in layman terms why this is the case?
  I did watch the video and it has nothing to do with grifting approaches used by AI companies. The video is focused on explaining a relatively technical concept for non-specialists (not AI safety more broadly in context of real world use).
  Further on you talk about non-LLM ML/AI safety issues without any sort of explanation what you are referring to. Can you please let us know what you are referring to (I am genuinely curious)?
  You cite a paper; can you provide a brief summary of what the findings are and why they are relevant to a skeptical interpretation of "AI safety" messaging from organization like Apollo Research and Anthropic?
- It is a controversial take (by US standards)
  The only people in denial about corruption within us government and corporate systems are boomers.
  Clearly most common folk know the deal hence why Luigi is a hero and we don't even know if he actually destroyed that parasit Brian Thompson
  
  It's been a while since I've been/lived in the US (I do have close friends who lived there though), but I disagree. It seemed like a general social issue that crosses all demographic segments.

Oh yeah, they're cunts. My very first comment there went 'how lovely, this sneer club nonsense made the jump from reddit,' and that was a one-step permaban.
Conservatism is not a political ideology. It's tribalism. All they can do is perform loyalty to the ingroup. If you prove their reasons wrong, they will pick a different reason. This card-shuffling behavior will occasionally resemble a cogent argument... but they don't mean it. It never predicts their future claims. The only consistent element is the conclusion: outgroup bad, ingroup good.
'It's not a debate club' just means 'we're going to shout our opinions at you, shut up and take it.' Fuck that. That's naked bastardry before you even showed up. An entire instance for this enforced circlejerk does not deserve federation.
- And then, because they learn these maladaptive ways of interacting with anyone who disagrees with them, any time they spend outside of the little bubble will feature people being hostile to them, which they will interpret as being oppressed which will reinforce the whole structure. Religion does the same thing, as does lemmy.ml.
  
  Lemmyml is the most "so you hate waffles?" forum I have ever seen. As you said - they've got a dummy in mind, and you're just the face tacked onto it. Your own words are like 10% of the argument happening in their heads. Trying to pick apart "that's not what I fucking wrote," without wasting six paragraphs they're also not going to read, or falling afoul of the blatantly one-sided "be nice or else" threats, is an endless psychic vampire attack.
  I was on reddit for fifteen years. I've been here for two. I am anything but averse to arguing, even with complete buttheads. But "be civil" is the biggest gift to trolls anyone has ever devised. It lets them spit whatever dishonest contrarian nonsense they want - and the obvious and necessary "oh fuck off" is what gets the boot. You will participate in legitimizing their hot take, because some cult of moderators thinks trolling is means name-calling. Like nobody's ever rude for a damn good reason. And also "this is abusive, I am leaving" counts as rude, because go fuck yourself.

They're very much an echo chamber, all disagreeing or insufficiently groupthink views are rejected. I had two discussions there and then gave up and blocked them.

PTB
I had the unexpectedly bemusing experience of commenting on that instance recently.
Same situation, they really don't like AI over there and just go super hostile on anyone who dares say anything off script. Zero nuance.
Treating that place as a zoo now if it shows up again

I think Skiluros is right on the money, but I'm just going to point out something. (Disclamer: I am a regular reader of tech takes and I enjoy their snarky negativity)
You walked into a hater's club with a rule of "no debates", debated the regular posters, and got banned. Is it heavy handed? Maybe, but it is low-effort moderation. I get the feeling if they didn't moderate similarly to this, they would be able to preserve the vibe of the place (and you are not obligated to like or agree with this vibe). They're allowed to have their own corner of the internet.
I think they'd probably reverse it if you asked them to. I base this on the idea that instance bans are easy to hand out, and asking politely for an unban is something most banned people don't bother to do. I could be wrong.
I bet they get absolutely flooded with folks who just want to debate instead of joining in on the sneering. It's gotta be way lower effort to just ban people. It's not like there's any large communities on that instance (Look at their local front page: buttcoin, sneerclub, techtakes. All hater's clubs, many posts months old on "active" setting), so I don't think they're doing real harm, either. It's not like you were instance banned from like, lemmy.world or something.
There's plenty of other communities to discuss AI on lemmy. IMHO, you're just missing the point of techtakes. You don't have to agree with them, just like they aren't required to refute your youtube video.
- That's so weird, though. You can sneer at people who are wrong, without needing to mechanically censor anyone who might point out that you're actually the wrong one. It feels like they want the bullying aspect without the fact-checking aspect. There's plenty in tech that you can make fun of because it is wrong without needing to shield yourself from any possible criticism when you do that.
  I didn't check the instance rules, as I think most people don't if something just occurs to them when they see something and they want to say something. I don't care enough to beg for readmission. I'm just pointing out that they are being weird, and checking myself a little bit, and wanting to continue the conversation with anyone who wants to, in a place where I won't be silenced.
  
  I didn’t check the instance rules
  Mistakes happen, but it is on you.
  I don’t care enough to beg for readmission.
  But you do care enough to type words and words and words somewhere else, no?
  I’m just pointing out that they are being weird
  I politely disagree. What you're viewing as mechanical censorship is just community curation to them. Part of "power tripping" implies they are abusing power, and I don't see them preventing you from participating with anything you appreciate. There's plenty of other AI communities on lemmy.
  In summary, a comic:

PTB, also major groupthink going on where they want to argue with you about LLMs when your point is explicitly broader.
- I feel like a lot of people, these ones included, have a ready-made idiot in their minds who is saying certain things which they love to dunk on, and the instant someone disagrees with them, they get to work on it with gusto, filling in the other side of the argument with the idiot beliefs so they can save some time and get to snarking.
  
  Waiting to speak, rather than listening. Classic ~~Reddit~~ Lemmy.

Every post from awful.systems is angry about something and half the time I have no idea what they're even angry about and I'm afraid to ask.
- There’s a guy in the friend group who is SUPER amped up about how hetero he is. He talks about it, and how he hates the gays, regularly.
  There’s a bank that runs CONSTANT billboards about how you’re not just a number to them, you’re an important human being, and they pay a smiling lady in the commercials to be super friendly so you’ll know they really care about you.
  There’s a community on Lemmy whose whole reason for being is that they are WAY smarter than all these people writing these articles. We don’t even have to debate, because they KNOW they’re way smarter, super smart, and everyone else is dumb. They can’t stop talking about how much smarter they are, it seems like that part is more important to them than the tech, for them to tell you all about.
  
  who is SUPER amped up about how hetero he is. He talks about it, and how he hates the gays, regularly.
  Hmmm, that's like the first step haha
  Tell him to keep going

I've never posted there before but it seems like they are a legitimately terrible instance, don't blame yourself.
Since you're an admin you're in a better position than most people since you can ban then unban yourself using another admin account to remove their ban of you if you really want to. It's seen as sleezy to do that but awful.systems is sleezy too, so maybe justified?

The old school tech guys are super anti-AI. I think it’s the usual refusal to keep up with new tech.
I’ll admit, I was in the same basket, until I heard a professor speak about it at my son’s university. They were talking about university concerns of students cheating with AI, and one progressive professor told us about how she encourages its use. She said now that pandora’s box has been opened, the best thing she could do to best prepare them for the real world was teach them to use it properly to improve their workflow, rather than try to ban its use.
There was more to it, but at the end of the talk I realized I’d made the mistake of writing it off. I made the exact same mistake a lot of these tech guys are now, and underestimated how fast it’s advancing. I messed with AI a couple years prior, wasn’t impressed, and let that form my opinions. When I tried it again, I couldn’t believe how much more impressive it was than before. Then I stayed with it, and I couldn’t believe how fast I was watching it improve every single month. If you’re not working with it regularly, you really cannot understand how fast this is moving.
Realizing this was similar to the invention of the digital calculator, I tried to spread the word to the old farts that the abacus would soon be dead. But none of them want to hear it. Saying anything positive about AI will get you slammed with downvotes and bans, and lots of lectures like ‘I tried it two years ago, and it was a joke.’ It was shocking to me, how many Luddites are in tech.
Screw’em. Let them get left behind. Can’t drag someone into the future who wants to be stuck in the past. It still has a long way to go, but I’ve started using it to speed up my workflow. Even with the mistakes it makes, it’s worth it for how fast I can now get through the blank page phase of a project. No more boiler plate work slowing me down. It probably won’t become sentient in my lifetime, but damn if it isn’t an incredibly useful tool.
- If the curtain catches fire, then pandora's box has already been opened and you might as well start spraying gasoline around the room. No point trying to fix problems when we can just accept that the room is on fire and start preparing to be fireproof.
  AI is a shitty attempt at a shitty thing. If it improves your work, then your work was REALLY bad. If it gets better, then it will be a GOOD attempt at a shitty thing. Your work is STILL really bad, but now you have a machine to make things you claim credit for. It will never be a good thing.
  AI is a technological fire pit, and you are blindly walking into the flames so the other char-grilled victims don't leave you behind. Let me put out the damn fire.
  
  When you realize later that the world has left you behind, I want you to think back on this nonsense you posted.

Blocked that instance after I first saw it. We were never gonna get along.

Is it "brigading" to ask someone to drop a polite note into the original post, inviting them to continue the conversation here? A couple of people said things I want to respond to, but of course I can't.
- awful systems is full of toxicity but they are not wrong on this. your comments there specifically fail to address the context ("ai in general" but pivot to ai is very specifically discussing the current ml methods used by these companies, especially llm). this sort of off topic posting is likely why you were percieved the way you were.
  In addition, AI safety (what you put forward) is conceptually a scapegoat to avoid realistic and immediate harms from ai hype and related tech industry nonsense. the sorts of what ifs you pose largely rely on magical thinking to the benefit of companies who continue grifting and rotting everything they touch in the meantime. It also serves to imply capabilities to these technologies that are unreasonable, often absurd, and feeds into the grift. this is the exact topic the article is about, in fact.
  Anyway, deprogramming the sci fi notion of ai singularity in these contexts is frought and drawn out. if all you are looking for is to keep arguing with awful systems folks, go find a better use of your time.

99% of people are dumb as rocks, and tribal and intensely conformist on top. And the moderators are the worst. There's no getting around that. For this reason any public forum is invariably awful. Joy is only found on the edges

It’s amazing what will and won’t get an instance banned

47 comments