{
  "$type": "site.standard.document",
  "bskyPostRef": {
    "cid": "bafyreiheqmwzqwalt7luipamv3m7ya3bd3kzjwsh3trjonyysnabcf4ciq",
    "uri": "at://did:plc:pi6woz4d47bkuws673w2il2r/app.bsky.feed.post/3mgrxifcqwkr2"
  },
  "path": "/t/haskell-vibes-jappie/13772?page=2#post_36",
  "publishedAt": "2026-03-11T13:08:56.000Z",
  "site": "https://discourse.haskell.org",
  "textContent": "ocramz:\n\n> conflating the economic, social, cognitive and technological dimensions helps with understanding\n\nI think it very much does, since it is a significant aspect of the technology. I think people have to finally learn that the term “technical argument” is used to weasel out of responsibility. It is a political statement to not conflate “technical” with social, economic and cognitive dimensions.\n\n> You can run an LLM on your desktop workstation, in particular one trained with fully open and/or synthetic data.\n\nI would love to see the link to the useful LLM which all the programmers are using that has been trained without labour exploitation and that I can run on my own machine. I would even buy a graphics card for that!\n\nMind you though, I think this is a strawman. It’s not about the theoretical possibility of an ethical LLM existing but about the _reality_ that we’re confronted with right now:\n\n  * people are buying the services from two companies\n  * they are absolutely horrendous for the environment\n  * and built on large scale exploitation\n\n\n\n> As for the shifting of labor bargaining power to capital, that didn’t start in 2023 with ChatGPT as I’m sure you’re aware.\n\nThis is literally we-should-improve-society-somewhat.jpg. I think it’s not a very good argument to say “oh, bad things happened in the past so this new very bad thing is defensible”. You’re basically acknowledging that it’s not great and then you try to rationalize it immediately.",
  "title": "Haskell 💜 Vibes / Jappie"
}