no elaboration necessary
semioticbreakdown
Paulo Freire might be who youre looking for.
Dehumanization, which marks not only those whose humanity, has been stolen, but also (though in a different way) those who have stolen it, is a distortion of the vocation of becoming more fully human. This distortion occurs within history; but it is not an historical vocation. Indeed, to accept dehumanization as an historical vocation would lead either to cynicism or total despair. The struggle for humanization, for the emancipation of labour, for the overcoming of aliena-tion, for the affirmation of men as persons would be meaningless. This struggle is possible only because dehumanization, although a concrete historical fact, is not a given destiny but the result of an unjust order that engenders violence in the oppressors, which in turn dehumanizes the oppressed.
The attempt to be more human, individualistically, leads to having more, egotistically: a form of dehumanization. Not that it is not fundamental to have in order to be human. Precisely because it is necessary, some men’s having must not be allowed to constitute an obstacle to others’ having, to consolidate the power of the former to crush the latter.
From Pedagogy of the Oppressed.
It's a willingness to divest themselves of their humanity, by dehumanizing others, in order to maintain class relations and further the accumulation of capital. In doing so they reduce everyone to objects or machines in service of capital. There is a parallel here with the conception of animals as not "having souls" and not feeling pain. It was not always this way in the western world, but came to be stripped from them in the process of historical development as a result of material conditions (The Christian conception of "dominion" thus allowing you to do whatever youd like to animals was not the causal factor, but apologia for the way things were - post hoc justification for the keeping of animals as property). Similarly there should be no surprise that the machine conception of the organism has arisen as a common way of thinking about the brain, people, animals, and so on. In some sense, it's true; we are all reduced to machines by capital, our agency and autonomy is subordinated to a hierarchy and collective conscious over which we have no say. But it becomes true of all of us. The bourgeois are not human - becoming bourgeois won't make you more human.
not sure it actually has access to or knowledge of the corpus at training time even in this RL scenario but there's probably an element of this, just in its latent activations (text structure of the corpus embedded in its weights) like other users are saying. but it's important to note that it doesnt identify anything. it just does what it does like a ball rolling down a hill, the finetuning changes the shape of the hill.
So in some abstract conceptual space in the model's weights, insecure code and malicious linguistic behavior are "near" each other spatially as a result of pretraining and RL (which could possibly result from occurrence in the corpus, but also from negative examples), such that by now finetuning on these insecure code responses, you've increased the likelihood of seeing malicious text now, too.
i read more theory i swear i will understand hegel/phenomenology of the spirit at some point but it feels illusory. i think i understand terms or ideas for a brief second and then it's gone and i put the book down again.
I really liked Capitalist Realism tho so i'm probably going to try to find more of Fischer's books.
cryptotreatlerism