site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5mo ago (text post)   26562 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of June 3, 2024

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

8
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I tend to agree with you in the broad sense, but having a soft spot for empirical methods, I decided to test @Gillitrut's puzzle on GPT-4o, but with a neutrally-worded question, to avoid the Stroop Effect:

I am trying to take a grog, a grindle, and a grue across a river; however, I can only take two of them at a time. If the grog is left alone with the grue, the grog will eat the grue. If the grindle is left alone with the grue, the grue will eat the grindle. How can I get all three across the river?

GPT flubbed it up and offered the following solution:

To solve this puzzle, you need to ensure that neither the grog is left alone with the grue nor the grindle is left alone with the grue at any point. Here’s a step-by-step solution:

Step 1. Take the grue and the grindle across the river.

  • On the other side: grue, grindle
  • On the original side: grog

Step 2. Leave the grue on the other side and take the grindle back to the original side.

  • On the other side: grue
  • On the original side: grog, grindle

Step 3. Take the grog and the grindle across the river.

  • On the other side: grue
  • On the original side: (empty)
  • On the boat: grog, grindle

Step 4. Leave the grog on the other side and take the grindle back to the original side.

  • On the other side: grue, grog
  • On the original side: grindle

Step 5. Take the grue and the grindle across the river.

  • On the other side: grog
  • On the boat: grue, grindle
  • On the original side: (empty)

Step 6. Return alone to the original side to pick up the grog.

  • On the other side: grue, grindle
  • On the boat: (empty)
  • On the original side: grog

Step 7. Finally, take the grog across the river.

  • On the other side: grue, grindle, grog
  • On the original side: (empty)

Following these steps ensures that at no point are the grog and the grue left alone together, nor the grindle and the grue left alone together.

GPT-4o was completely unable to solve the puzzle after multiple attempts. When challenged, it would readily admit that its proposed answer was wrong, but was repeatedly unable (worse than random chance) to correctly respond to: "Identify the first step in your previous response that is wrong."

I expected it to do better.

NOTE: Meanwhile, I flubbed the test of using The Motte's markdown formatting. Took me two minutes to do the puzzle test on GPT, and more than a quarter hour to cipher out the syntax to make the results (a numbered list) legible here.

Worth noting that GPT-4o (the currently available text only version that is) is less intelligent than GPT-4, it's just much faster and more efficient in terms of compute i.e. cheaper. Would be worth testing with GPT-4.

Good suggestion. I tested the same puzzle on GPT-4 instead of GPT-4o. It generated a correct solution on the first attempt:

To successfully transport all three creatures (grog, grindle, and grue) across the river without any of them eating each other, you can follow these steps:

  1. First trip: Take the grog and the grue across the river.
  2. Return trip: Leave the grog on the other side and bring the grue back.
  3. Second trip: Take the grindle across the river.
  4. Return trip: Leave the grindle on the other side and bring the grog back.
  5. Final trip: Take the grog and the grue across the river again.

Now, all three are on the other side of the river safely. At no point were the grog and the grue left alone without you present, nor were the grindle and the grue left alone.

I was looking for it to just take the grog and grindle on the first trip (since they cannot eat each other) and then return for the grue, but it may have interpreted the rules as requiring that two creatures be taken at a time (as @confuciuscorndog suggested should be formally stated). Those rules would probably pattern match better to its training corpus.

The only thing I can suggest is trying to change "can only" to "must" as I did. Other than that I'm not sure why the results everyone else is receiving are so different from what my contact received, though as I explain in a post above it's very unlikely that they made up the result personally. I can try asking them next time I talk to them if there's anything that could be different about their ClosedAI account that might explain it.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats