A Statement on the AI Question (AI Translated)

Recently, many people have pressured me to finally take sides and complete a statement on the AI question, so I have no choice but to make one. Citing my statements in various places such as URLO (see the Internet Archive for archived copies) as well as other posts on my personal blog, I have already elaborated on issues such as the jurisprudential paradoxes, ethical traps, ontological crises, and execution and social dilemmas that may arise from treating AIGC content differently, so I will not repeat them here.

Of course, those were more philosophical and technical discussions rather than emotional or political positioning. But if people insist on forcing me to take sides, then I have no choice but to make a public statement.

I myself do not have a strong stance on this issue, but first of all, there are several things I strongly oppose:

1. Abusing our Queer name and attempting to use it to occupy the moral high ground. Here I directly call out https://codeberg.org/ethical-foss/open-slopware and other repositories, as well as the egregious behavior in multiple forums, which seriously infringes on others’ reputation and the foundation’s goodwill, openly organizes harassment and hate speech, violates its own hypocritical CoC or forum rules, and simultaneously misappropriates the name of the Queer community. This has happened before, when far-left groups tried to “represent” the entire LGBTQIA+ community, and this time it is the same. I oppose introducing identity issues into the AI question, and I oppose even more introducing the AI question into the issue of equality for sexual minorities, because this not only tears apart the LGBTQIA+ community but also makes the AI question even more politicized.
2. I oppose polarization and emotionalism, and I oppose quoting out of context and emotional attacks. In this fragmented era in which grand narratives are disintegrating, I know this is very difficult, and it may even be overly idealistic, but I still have to say it. Recently it has become unbearable.

Now that I have said what I oppose, I will say what I support. I have consistently believed that the AI question involves ontological issues, and that it should not be up to any single company or individual to decide how to treat it. Instead, it should be re-discussed and a new contract should be concluded at the more macro level of the social contract.

Therefore: I am neither in the “pro-AI” camp nor the “anti-AI” camp, and even less am I a leftist or a rightist. The only thing I truly support is this: put down emotions, put down the posture of having a position first and reasons afterward, and seriously respond to the views of all sides, rather than using “you are off topic” and similar phrases as an all-purpose excuse to block any discussion in order to defend one’s own viewpoint. Only in this way can rational discussion have a real way out. Otherwise, no one knows and no one has the right to decide what the future will be like. Moreover, we must first solve the ontological problem before solving the execution problem (whether as methodology? or as subject? or something else?), and this is even more something that only everyone discussing together can decide.

Note:

Regarding the repository https://codeberg.org/ethical-foss/open-slopware, their own contributors’ CoC includes these two points:

I understand that I should not mention this repo to other project maintainers in the context of them being added to this list in any way.
I understand that I generally should not be linking screenshots of chats here.

Everyone can imagine just how guilty they feel. As for the specific contents of that repository, you can go look for yourselves. In any case, I am already on my way to contacting multiple foundations and NGOs. I really cannot take it anymore. It is one thing to be emotional and polarized, but they are actually carrying out this kind of witch hunt and openly inciting provocation, insults, and harassment.

This repository has nearly 2,000 commits and nearly a thousand contributors. So much energy has not been spent on discussing the issue itself, or on maintaining projects that suffer from “maintainer fatigue,” or on strengthening maintenance automation, but instead has been used for this. If this is not called emotional mobilization, and if this still counts as reasons first and position afterward, then there is no justice left in the world. In addition, I have archived many other pages, including discussions on URLO, discussions under rust-lang, and statements on various other community forums, in the Internet Archive, so everyone can look them up for themselves.

A Statement on the AI Question (AI Translated)

Recently, many people have pressured me to finally take sides and complete a statement on the AI question, so I have no choice but to make one. Citing my statements in various places such as URLO (see the Internet Archive for archived copies) as well as other posts on my personal blog, I have already elaborated on issues such as the jurisprudential paradoxes, ethical traps, ontological crises, and execution and social dilemmas that may arise from treating AIGC content differently, so I will not repeat them here.

Of course, those were more philosophical and technical discussions rather than emotional or political positioning. But if people insist on forcing me to take sides, then I have no choice but to make a public statement.

I myself do not have a strong stance on this issue, but first of all, there are several things I strongly oppose:

1. Abusing our Queer name and attempting to use it to occupy the moral high ground. Here I directly call out https://codeberg.org/ethical-foss/open-slopware and other repositories, as well as the egregious behavior in multiple forums, which seriously infringes on others’ reputation and the foundation’s goodwill, openly organizes harassment and hate speech, violates its own hypocritical CoC or forum rules, and simultaneously misappropriates the name of the Queer community. This has happened before, when far-left groups tried to “represent” the entire LGBTQIA+ community, and this time it is the same. I oppose introducing identity issues into the AI question, and I oppose even more introducing the AI question into the issue of equality for sexual minorities, because this not only tears apart the LGBTQIA+ community but also makes the AI question even more politicized.
2. I oppose polarization and emotionalism, and I oppose quoting out of context and emotional attacks. In this fragmented era in which grand narratives are disintegrating, I know this is very difficult, and it may even be overly idealistic, but I still have to say it. Recently it has become unbearable.

Now that I have said what I oppose, I will say what I support. I have consistently believed that the AI question involves ontological issues, and that it should not be up to any single company or individual to decide how to treat it. Instead, it should be re-discussed and a new contract should be concluded at the more macro level of the social contract.

Therefore: I am neither in the “pro-AI” camp nor the “anti-AI” camp, and even less am I a leftist or a rightist. The only thing I truly support is this: put down emotions, put down the posture of having a position first and reasons afterward, and seriously respond to the views of all sides, rather than using “you are off topic” and similar phrases as an all-purpose excuse to block any discussion in order to defend one’s own viewpoint. Only in this way can rational discussion have a real way out. Otherwise, no one knows and no one has the right to decide what the future will be like. Moreover, we must first solve the ontological problem before solving the execution problem (whether as methodology? or as subject? or something else?), and this is even more something that only everyone discussing together can decide.