> Well, the arguments out there aren’t that LLM’s are too brash, or discourteous or, insensitive. People are saying they’re “dangerous”.
I didn't say that...
> None of your examples speak to danger.
Why should they have supported an argument I didn't make.
My comment is anti-anti-censorship of LLM. People already self-censor a lot; "reading the room" is huge part of being a functional member of society, and expecting LLMs to embody the "no-filter, inappropriate jerk" personality is what's against the grain - not the opposite.
I'm pragmatic enough to know the reason corporate LLMs "censor" is their inability to read the room, so they default to the lowest common factor and be inoffensive all the time (which has no brand risk), rather than allowing for the possibility the LLM offends $PROTECTED_CLASS, which can damage their brand or be legally perilous. That juice is not worth the squeeze just to make a vocal subset of nerd happy; all the better if those nerds fine-tune/abliterate public models so the corps can wash their hands of any responsibility of the modified versions.
> That my point of view must be silenced at all costs is one of the main reasons why I would never support the Geekfeminism people.
There's a difference between silencing a point of view and refusing to repeatedly have the same argument. New arguments need new information, and the vast majority of arguments in that area have been had already. That's some of the primary value provided by their wiki: a repository of past arguments and refutations, to avoid having to revisit them every time.
Project mailing lists and other communication channels, for instance, are the wrong place for repeated introductory conversations demanding justifications for a code of conduct. And that's a very common problem.
Considering I didn't start with the set of base assumptions I have now, and had to learn them over time, I'm always willing to question them. That I don't personally find any of your arguments even remotely compelling towards that end doesn't make those assumptions immutable.
To explicitly state some of the assumptions that I suspect we disagree on: 1) If you refuse to exclude anyone from a project, then you're by default excluding people who are not willing to put up with a hostile environment. 2) Since you can't avoid excluding people, better to exclude people who make the project less welcoming. 3) Don't let the people you want to exclude write the policy. 4) Don't let the people who would fare just fine in a project without a code of conduct drive the requirements; get the requirements from people who wouldn't.
Apart from that, the other reason I don't particularly care about having this argument here is that it's unlikely to have as much effect as having it elsewhere.
> So why are wokeists constantly complaining about what companies allow on their platforms?
I don't know, but maybe because they want to make sure minorities are being treated fairly, so they advocate for removing language they think is insulting people or belittling them.
Again, this has nothing to do with censorship.
> Yes, so why would that exclude men or white people?
> If, however, we are still talking about the case of censoring out profanity, you know my opinion. The people who are filtered out (or constitute the "less diversity") are the sort of people who get offended by me making use of a basic freedom (the one of speech). I am not interested in meeting people like that - frankly I hope they stay as far away from me as fucking possible.
This is interesting. My instinctive reaction to someone trying to censor me is pretty damn negative, and I can swear like a sailor. On the other hand, what you wrote reminded me of a super sweet, gentle guy that I worked with once who was just genuinely freaked out by my profane manner. From a different country, deeply religious, etc. etc. I found out from a third party that the guy was weirded out by the way some of us carried ourselves, since the guy was a gentleman and wouldn't/couldn't say anything.
Of course I started behaving more carefully around him, and a little more carefully in general. He was always nice to me and a very, very skilled worker, someone I respected, so it would have seemed churlish to me to do otherwise.
> If you don't want to get hit on there's a plethora of ways to communicate that in a non-verbal fashion, like wearing a wedding ring or - less subtle - wearing a shirt that says "I don't want to get hit on" or something, you get the idea…
I believe the onus is entirely on the guy who is trying to be charming (if that's what we're talking about, as opposed to simple catcalling sorts of harassment) to notice when the object of his wit does not reciprocate with a smile and a kind word and to move the fuck on before his behavior gets creepy. I suppose I'm agreeing with you, as not smiling is a pretty clear form of communication - no rings or shirts or pepper spray are required.
I'm not sure what we should do with the guys who aren't clever enough to pick up on such signals but I'm open to a Soylent Green sort of option. (attending the average hacker event seems like a punishment all its own to me, so I'm useless for envisioning rules for something like that. Punish them by making them attend more hacker events?)
> But you can't tell me that censoring talking about them won't have a backlash.
Yes, exactly my point. I find it very strange to fight a stereotype by acting in a way that could easily be casted into the said stereotype. If anything this will even make it stronger.
> If you only hire white dudes in hoodies with stickers on their macbooks you're only going to get the toxic gamergate crowd, which has not gone away at all.
Um, excuse me? I'm a white dude who wears a hoodie and has a sticker on my macbook, and I am not in "the toxic gamergate crowd." If anything you're the one being toxic.
Exactly. LLMs worry me because I remember the kind of asshole who would harass me over a decade ago, when I was an openly-queer woman in programmer-first spaces; I can’t imagine what it would have turned into if tooling like LLMs were available back then.
> are the creators actually not aware that the term is used to represent the worst (most misogynistic, most crass, least mature, least dependable) people currently flocking to the industry?
They are. They were making a joke. One of the traits of a mature adult is being able to step one meta-layer up about any issue and be able to joke about it.
> People somehow seriously claim that the authors should hide what community they represent,
Starting the letter with "We’re writing you today both as adult creators and concerned individuals about free, legal, expression." seems to show the community they represent is "Adult creators and concerned individuals about free, legal, expression".
> hide the unintended discriminatory effects of the policy changes,
They shouldn't hide it, but they should at least show some evidence for it.
> and not be so emotional about losing their livelihoods,
They can be emotional all they want, but it's maybe not the best argument to change a company's policy. If it's masquerading as an argument, then it's emotional blackmail.
> because it makes them feel uncomfortable to read an emotional appeal in an open letter.
I don't mind emotional appeals when they actually make sense.
> For example a lot of people here on HN have no problem using terms like “master” and “slave” in a technological context, but other people have told me those terms make them uncomfortable. I don’t want my students to feel that way so I don’t use those words in a classroom context, even if every single person on HN is okay using them.
I am actually sympathetic to avoiding the master/slave dichotomy when naming software systems, exactly because I have heard actual reports of people feeling uncomfortable with these terms, for somewhat obvious reasons.
The same can NOT be said, to any extent, about user, submit, Scrum Master, master branch, Master's degree, webmaster, white space, black box, and the vast majority of other examples on the list.
> These documents are about others policing their own language, not them policing yours. Your comments about “ridiculing” and “nipping it in the bud” are closer to policing the speech of others than this list is.
These documents are about policing the speech of all members of the organization, not self-censoring by the authors of this ridiculous list. And no, my seeking to ridicule this list is not in itself an attempt at policing speech - as in the old tradition of intolerance against the intolerant. That is, they are a small group seeking to use their position of authority to police the speech of many many others, and I am seeking to defend myself pre-emptively by seeking to stop them from propagating the concept - not the speech itself.
They're welcome to maintain and publish their silly little list, they're not welcome to actually impose it on anyone - including the Stanford organization.
And I should note I am just some atheist gay programmer in a Eastern European nation. Not exactly a member of the American cultural hegemony seeking to avoid thinking about their past crimes.
>This is what [the forces of D]iversity [are] (or should be) fighting against, it really is trying to make it merit based which goes against our survival instincts, even those of the "nerds".
How exactly do you expect a group to react when you push against its survival instincts?
Feminism is accused of this most often, so I'll use it as an example: some have accused the feminist movement of sexism because it simultaneously claims the sanctity of women-only "safe spaces" while simultaneously fighting against the existence of male-only institutions. I don't want to pass a verdict on that so much as point out that that is what the article is talking about:a safe space for nerds.
And I agree. That is why I wrote: "That said, you can allow people to be asses and still not allow sexist, racist, etc. remarks."
I live with women and girls and respect the hell out of them. We also have homosexual extended family members.
I just think that you can also allow people to have angry disagreements as long as they don't cross the weirdo, sexist, racist, homophobe line.
Some people need to escalate in order to resolve things because they have technical skills but not people skills. If every great project had to be composed completely of people with great people skills, we'd not have many of the projects we have today (Linux, Rails, etc.).
> I think the gay community, despite their ongoing struggle, has at least managed to make it almost impossible to receive a similar kind of media report that consists of nothing but stereotypes.
Are you kidding?
Yeah, I get where you're coming from on the offensive tone in some articles, but I think it's absolutely ridiculous to compare the portrayal of nerds in the media to the struggle for gay rights and equality.
And on that offensive tone - I don't think it's really present, here. I felt flattered as this article hammered home the importance of being up to date on tech, and employing the kinds of people that'll get great work done.
I've noticed a tendency, not just amongst others but also something I catch myself doing, for people like you and me to be a little over-sensitive. I spent a big period of my life being ridiculed over what I liked, and what I did, and what I looked like. I got used to confusing insults being thrown at me veiled under sarcasm, and felt like the whole world was laughing at me and I didn't even hear the joke.
So I got mean. I stopped trusting people, and I always assumed the worst. If someone (particularly someone matching the profile of former tormentors - bigger than me, cooler than me, better hair than me, plays sports better than me) said something that was maybe sincere, but possibly a sarcastic insult, I took it as the latter. These people were out to get me and if I gave them the benefit of the doubt, they would set me up for a fall!
Of course, the real world isn't high school, and more than that, the world has changed and attitudes have moved on. But any geek who is still carrying around a defensive attitude has turned the tables: now they are the ones judging others, being exclusionist (see: people crying about "fake" nerd girls), judging people on their appearances (many of us are anti-suit) or what they do (and many of us are anti-sports).
> self-content righteousness in making fun of those people who created everything modern society cannot be without: facebook, twitter, the internet, apps, you name it
On the one hand this sounds arrogant; I think as a developer I'd be remiss in not including many other people in the credits (product managers, finance, legal, designers, ux experts - many of these people are not nerds). On the other, whenever I speak to people about what I do ("What's a software engineer?" "I uh.. make websites") the reception is generally positive and enthusiastic - most people acknowledge that they enjoy the fruits of technological development, appreciate the people that bring it to them, and often aspire to learn more of the inner workings.
Of course, there are some bad articles - but they aren't representative of people's opinions in the wider world, in my experience, and the number I read that are flattering versus insulting is improving all the time.
> Maybe you should actually think about the problem before dismissing it with a straw-man.
This is not a straw man. There has been at least one event where Adria Richards, a well-known feminist, mistakenly started a witch hunt by incorrectly assuming that the stick figures drawn by a (female) designer were specific genders. [1][2]
> It's called professionalism. Do you know what that word means?
Yes, to the average person it usually means "Yawn, I'm going to have to sit through a 2-hour lecture from someone telling me not to say 'sexy' in front of my co-workers. What is this, 1842? Meanwhile I wish we'd replace our piece-of-crap JSP website with something sexier." That is the sense in which sexy is used. It's not about sex.
> women are already disproportionately the target of privacy violations
This is a sweeping, and in my opinion incorrect, assertion. I would like to see some data on this. Just having the media write stories about women being harassed on Twitter because it makes good copy, doesn't mean that men aren't harassed too, in equal measure.
"That's still a strawman, and not a valid response to anything she actually said."
Actually, this was Linus's response to what she said, and as I said, he's not wrong. She wanted people to stop spouting verbal abuse and treat everyone civilly. Linus's response was that this is essentially fake civility and fake professionalism, and as I said, he's not wrong.
"Have you read the actual mailing list discussion? She's rather patient, polite and constructive, while Linus spouts mostly BS like the above strawman. So how do you come up with that "agenda" of hers?"
1. Yes, I have.
2. Because she posted on G+ asking for the support of others outside of the community to support her?
The very first line of the post says:
Please speak up, either here on Google+ by resharing this
post, or commenting on this post with words of support. If
you dare, you can also reply to my lkml email.
I'm not sure how you read it another way? It deliberately tries to invoke people who do not participate in LKML
"Then try thinking, it could go a little something like this: maybe, just maybe, she's the first mentally grown up person to stroll deep enough into that mailing list to ever raise the point. This is not wrong, just awkward, and "that's just the way I am" is a response fit for a 5 year old."
No, actually, she isn't. I've been on various versions of LKML since 1998, and she is definitely not the first mentally grown up person to complain. Posting to G+ to get the general support of others not on LKML to go yell at LKML seems, as I said, quite wrong.
Maybe you'd care to explain why you believe Linus is wrong, rather than saying it's a response for a 5 year old?
People have the right to build and associate with the communities they like. She doesn't like his community. How is trying to get random people on G+ to complain about it anything but the response of a 5 year old?
BTW, your tone does not come across as very civil or professional.
> For example, you guys have started arguing about "feminism" without the slightest reason to believe you mean the same thing by it.
Fair point. Thanks for the clarification. Amusingly, the discussion about feminism was only supposed to be an example of something that tends to get social media discussions heated no matter what direction you go with it (and as something to generally be avoided as a business risk).
It's exactly the kind of demonizing language that has unfortunately become common in recent years. By using dishonest wording to make your target look like an inhuman villain, it's easier to make the readers accept whatever the writer says. The writer then tries to sneakily shirk the responsibility to justify their claims. Just like at your quote:
> This is not good UX design. It is the opposite. It harms end-users. Revert the changes.
This wouldn't have passed my high school writing class. It's 3 arguments, 1 conclusion, and 0 evidence to support the conclusion. Instead of justifying their claims, people nowadays like to just throw out extreme words like "harm" and make it sound like Discord is installing keyloggers or something
> Could you give quotes to support the claim that he "justifies examples of violence and intimidation against women in the industry"? I read the article - did I miss that part?
It's a cultural thing. Some people (particularly among the younger generation or in the trans-community) seems to equate having their opinions challenged count as some form of "violence" and intimidation. These people don't want a discussion, unless everyone up front agrees to only agree to their point of view.
And somehow they are gaining ground, killing rational debate and freedom of speech, one tiny little step at a time, all in the name of tolerance and freedom.
> that someone ought to take it apart and do an annotated version of it as a lesson to the community.
I'm sure this isn't what you had in mind, but I couldn't help myself. I'm not claiming this is what they were actually thinking, but it's how an upset, uncharitable reader might take it, which is who you'd want to address in an apology.
>Hi everyone. We never meant to offend any person and are very sorry as we clearly have.
Read: If you felt offended, there is something wrong with you, not us.
> Geeklist is all about inclusion of every geek. Male and Female alike. We hope you’ll forgive the company and founders and use this as an opportunity to hire more women, support women in tech and their great achievements and promote a healthy work environment for all.
Read: Diversity boilerplate goes here.
> We did not create the video at question. It was created out of love for Geeklist by a great Woman entrepreneur at Design Like Woah for us.
Read: Some of our best friends are women.
> She makes shirts and made awesome ones for us. She also goes way out of her way to help us ship to our men and women alike globally who love our brand.
Read: "Ship to our men and women alike"? Sorry, that awkward phrase was a result of our last minute copy-paste effort to make our language more gender neutral.
> She is fighting to grow in a male dominant sector and marketing to her client. Please support her and buy her shirts. http://www.designlikewhoa.com/
Read: If you don't support the video she made for us, you are anti-female-empowerment. Flipped the script on you, didn't I?
> [ Correction: Just spoke to Gemma, her videographer owns it and she is trying to contact him (thanks so much Gemma)]
Read: Oops, disregard everything I just said.
> As for our handling of the twittersphere. We could have handled it better. I know Shanley personally, have skyped and emailed her many times and interviewed her for a job at Geeklist. She is an awesome candidate that as a startup I was very sad the timing was not right to work together.
Read: We turned down Shanley for a job because she's an incompetent, crazy bitch. Ignore everything bad she says about us--it's just sour grapes.
> She is an awesome candidate that as a startup I was very sad the timing was not right to work together.
Read: Did I mention she is crazy and you shouldn't listen to her? Bullet dodged.
> Of our 5 person team 2 are women and I am certain they can speak on our behalf as respectful gentlemen in the workplace who create a welcome environment for all.
Read: We are so gentlemanly we come to work wearing top hats and monocles.
> I also own a business with my wife where we have over 350+ women employees.
Read: I have a wife. Someone who has a wife cannot be sexist or gender-biased. QED, motherfucker.
> I’ve built my career over 15 years working to make this world a better place for women, mothers, and children.
Read: I am Mother Theresa. My personal conduct is above reproach.
> In my wildest dreams we would never wish to offend any woman [or anyone].
Read: No-one likes PR shitstorms.
> The initial request made sense and we were discussing finding Gemma to take it down, when we got taken off guard a bit by her continued comments.
Read: The bitch kept mouthing off to me, which hurt my fragile male ego.
> We handled those poorly. We apologize as well if our handling of the tweets offended anyone.
Read: To reiterate: if you were offended, you are a thin-skinned whiny weakling.
> In exchange, please direct this media attention to Gemma’s company and support her company by buying her shirts.
Read: Did I mention she's a woman?
> A women entrepreneur in the valley who used our logo and the fact we wanted shirts to help promote her business to her clients too. Tech geeks.
I didn't say that...
> None of your examples speak to danger.
Why should they have supported an argument I didn't make.
My comment is anti-anti-censorship of LLM. People already self-censor a lot; "reading the room" is huge part of being a functional member of society, and expecting LLMs to embody the "no-filter, inappropriate jerk" personality is what's against the grain - not the opposite.
I'm pragmatic enough to know the reason corporate LLMs "censor" is their inability to read the room, so they default to the lowest common factor and be inoffensive all the time (which has no brand risk), rather than allowing for the possibility the LLM offends $PROTECTED_CLASS, which can damage their brand or be legally perilous. That juice is not worth the squeeze just to make a vocal subset of nerd happy; all the better if those nerds fine-tune/abliterate public models so the corps can wash their hands of any responsibility of the modified versions.
reply