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.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
It's a constant issue with any kind of contractually based restriction on future behavior. I'm constantly dealing with people trying to put "irrevocable" clauses into their contracts, and it's really hard to pre-commit in such a way that consenting parties can't avoid the penalties.
Is that a bad thing? Past me was a different person. Why should I be beholden to him? I appreciate continuity of obligations to others, but why should I feel obligated to honor past commitments (e.g. not to make a profit) that I made to myself?
Because ability to commit is one of the fundemental building blocks of all relationships. It is one of the basic things that seperates intelligent life from mere biology and you can't have a society with out it.
More options
Context Copy link
Freedom of contract includes the freedom to abrogate prior contracts, but binding in the future is something people want to do all the time.
For example, you have an agreement between A and B to purchase B's business. A gets three months of due diligence before he needs to close. B is willing to give A two months extension at a price, but he wants to put it in the contract that there will be no additional extensions of the due diligence after that. B wants it to be binding on both parties that A can't get to the end of the extension period and say he needs more time. Regardless of price, B doesn't want it to go any further than the first extension, after five months A has to close or leave.
But saying that in the contract doesn't really mean anything. A can still come to B at the end of the five months and say, I'm not buying, give me an extension or I'm walking. And the contract in that case doesn't really mean anything if B wants to give in, by mutual agreement they can sign an addendum that gives an extension and specifically states that the clause against additional extensions is stricken from the agreement.
You have to resort to really complicated maneuvers to create a really binding agreement on both future parties, involving third parties. If you put some kind of penalty in, both parties can agree to forgive the penalty. Anything you ban can be abrogated or amended. Unless a party with enforceable rights says no, any contract can be changed with the consent of all parties.
Here though, I haven't studied it in great depth so I could be wrong, I think what we're really talking about is OpenAI making a public promise that it was a non-profit, but the actually binding contractual part of the promise only bound as long as the board kept it binding. OpenAI has been telling everyone it is a non-profit, and pointing to its non-profit status as binding proof that this promise was going to be kept. But the promise wasn't binding, not really, if the parties to whom it was made were willing to release it; which in this case is an insider circle-jerk.
More options
Context Copy link
Well, for one thing, because people who know you see it this way are a lot less likely to transact with you.
Is that so? I mean, sure, that's how it's supposed to work. But Trump doesn't pay his contractors and they still work for him, over and over again. In industry, obviously Machiavellian behavior has no lasting ramifications. My experience tells me that reputation has less of an effect than might be believed.
Yes, it is so. Can't speak to your example because I don't know anything about it but fixating on a really unusual edge case is unwise here.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
"When a man takes an oath... he's holding his own self in his own hands. Like water. And if he opens his fingers then, he needn't hope to find himself again."
More options
Context Copy link
Because you didn't make that promise to yourself. If it was like a private oath to quit drinking then sure, it's between past you and future you. But more often it's a restriction that you publicized and used to build goodwill and generally improve your position. OpenAI got where it is partly because people were permissive of a "non-profit" doing shady stuff "for the greater good".
Revoking a commitment like that is a really obvious act of duplicity and the correct move is for the broad public to punish them harshly for it. Keeping one's word is basically the highest virtue in my eyes and I hate that we've reached this point where duplicity is normalized.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link