"virtue signalling" really is one of those words/turns of phrase that needs to be put on a high shelf.

Plenty of people genuinely dislike the concentration of economic and computing power that big tech represents. Them expressing this is not "virtue signaling", it is an authentic moral position they hold.

Plenty of people genuinely dislike the disregard for labor and intellectual property rights that anything Gen AI represents. Again, an authentic moral position.

"Virtue signaling" is for example, when a corporate entity doesn't authentically support diversity through any kind of consequential action but does make sure to sponsor the local pride event (in exchange for their logo being everywhere) and swaps their social media logos to rainbow versions.

I believe it meets the definition of virtue signaling to express a position you don’t do anything to advocate - which is the vast majority of opinions expressed on the Internet. It can be a sincerely held belief but if you’re not taking action around it I don’t see any difference from the corporate example you gave.

Your statement is virtue signaling according to its own definition unless you've taken action to prevent people complaining about Google.

You haven’t taken actions against me misinterpreting things. Why do you keep virtue signaling?

What’s inherently wrong with virtue signaling though? I’m signaling virtues of thoughtfulness and careful, reasoned, intellectual debate. What virtues do you think you’re signaling about yourself?

Well since we’re in a thread about talking to dolphins:

The problem with virtue signaling is that it’s parroting virtue for social praise. This parrot-like, repeater-node behavior often attempts to move the conversation to virtue talking points and away from the specific topic.

To be clear, this is just about online virtue signaling. It’s just as silly in the physical world - certain attire, gestures, tribal obedience, etc.

To call something “virtue-signaling” implies the primary motivation of the behavior is to associate characteristics with oneself. There is a problem with virtue signaling in a discussion if the purpose of the discussion is to evaluate ideas in an abstract space —- the discussion then ceases to be in good faith.

Moreover, if all statements made in such a context needed to be acted out in someway, that would negate the whole purpose of the abstract space.

The purpose of my rhetoric in this thread has been to illustrate the issues with your definition rather than to say something about myself.

I suspect that the people that dislike supporting Google probably don’t support Google. I imagine that the people who dislike supporting generative AI do not support or use it? Why are you assuming they are hypocrites?

> Plenty of people genuinely dislike the concentration of economic and computing power that big tech represents.

The harder question that of risk management between the computing power we like on the one hand and its tendency to enable both megalomaniacs at the high end, and the unspeakable depravity of child pornography at the low.

None of those points are even remotely relevant in this case, unless you're worried about dolphin-English translators losing their livelihood?

Mindlessly parroting such talking points where they're not applicable is also a form of virtue-signalling.

And the comments in this thread are predominantly such virtue signalling nonsense.

I don’t remember saying I agree with these positions. I am actually opposed to the idea of making policy decisions based on moral values rather than consequentialist ethics, so I disagree with both.

When you make these tribal, political comments in a thread like this one - signaling your virtues - what do you prefer us to call it?

> It's trendy to hate Google,

Calling something "trendy" is a great way to try to dismiss it without actually providing any counterargument. The deep suspicion of anything Google does is extremely well justified IMHO.

Well enlighten me then, What's wrong with helping marine biologists trying to make sense of dolphin language?

How would you respond if asked you to explain why a tobacco company sponsoring a kid's sporting event might be anything less than wonderful?

Terrible analogy. This is not sponsoring but research. Google didn’t just give money in exchange for publicity. Google has traditionally invested in fundamental research that isn't commercially potential, at least in the short term.

If a tobacco company invested in lung cancer research that resulted in some treatment breakthroughs, that research should be celebrated, while their main business should continue to be condemned.

This is closer to being upset at any and all innovations done by an American because the USA does some terrible things. Not all parts of Google are directly tainted by ads and the people on these teams genuinely think they are working on important problems that help advance humanity. I don't think they are wrong to feel that way.

The dolphins aren't causing cancer in children.

Neither is said sporting event

But they might be planning to. We won't know until we are able to ask them.

That we know of!

Google is where great technology and innovation goes to die.

Please give me one example in the last decade where meta or Google research has led to actual products or open-sourced technologies, and not just expensive proprietary experiments shelved after billions were spent on them?

I'll wait.

The llama models

Too often it's just insecurity masking itself as posturing.

Regardless of your or my feelings on this specific topic, "virtue signalling" is good because virtue is good and signalling to others that we ought to be good is also good. The use of that term as a pejorative is itself toxic cynicism