site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   30015 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 21, 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.

Yes, the blowback against AI art seems to me a little insincere.

It's not.

The best way to understand people on the other side of a culture war issue is to start from the assumption that they really do genuinely believe what they say they believe.

Cynically, it's artists being sore that their highly developed skills can suddenly be near-replicated by a computer in 15 seconds.

Sure, that would upset anyone. But there are also many non-artists who don't like AI art. Also, people who have objections to AI painting also tend to have objections to AI music and AI voice acting, even if those areas don't overlap with their personal skill set. Which is evidence that the objections are principled rather than merely opportunistic.

The best way to understand people on the other side of a culture war issue is to start from the assumption that they really do genuinely believe what they say they believe.

I believe in the virtue of charity, but - come on. Do you really think that a person's private motivations for being in favour of/opposed to X are identical to their publicly stated motivations more often than not? At every point on the political spectrum?

Also, people who have objections to AI painting also tend to have objections to AI music and AI voice acting, even if those areas don't overlap with their personal skill set. Which is evidence that the objections are principled rather than merely opportunistic.

Alternatively, they believe (correctly, in my view) that generative AI is a war with multiple fronts, and if you want to win a war you have to win it on all of these fronts lest you fall victim to a rearguard action down the line. If AI visual art was banned but AI voice acting was seen as fair game, it's only a matter of time before lots of people start noticing that this seems kind of arbitrary and unfair.

Do you really think that a person's private motivations for being in favour of/opposed to X are identical to their publicly stated motivations more often than not? At every point on the political spectrum?

Well, it gets very complicated. People can be unaware of their own motivations, they can believe one thing for multiple different reasons, they can tell half-truths, they can believe something one day and not believe it the next.

I would just say that, as a general methodological principle, one should start by trying to find where the authentic principled disagreements are, rather than immediately jumping to cynical conclusions.

If AI visual art was banned but AI voice acting was seen as fair game, it's only a matter of time before lots of people start noticing that this seems kind of arbitrary and unfair.

Sure. But this isn't a psychologically realistic model of AI detractors. I assure you that the people who feel passionately about AI visual art feel equally passionately about voice acting.

The best way to understand people on the other side of a culture war issue is to start from the assumption that they really do genuinely believe what they say they believe.

We need a flashing banner along the lines of "Yes, your opponents actually think that. No, they aren't pretending to just to make you mad."

I've never for a moment thought that people opposed to AI art were actually fine with it but were just pretending to hate it to own the libs tech bros.

But there are also many non-artists who don't like AI art. Also, people who have objections to AI painting also tend to have objections to AI music and AI voice acting, even if those areas don't overlap with their personal skill set. Which is evidence that the objections are principled rather than merely opportunistic.

I don't think this follows. The only way some behavior is evidence that some belief in a principle is sincere is if that behavior is costly to the person, e.g. giving up food for some religious holiday or even the Joker setting money he stole on fire in The Dark Knight. I don't think making this kind of objection is costly to these people; if anything, it seems gainful in terms of status within their social groups. At best, it's evidence that they understand the logical implications of the principle they're espousing.

The only way some behavior is evidence that some belief in a principle is sincere is if that behavior is costly to the person

So what do you think would be an appropriately costly test for the anti-AI-art position?

That would have to depend on the specific principle at hand. If it's, say, that training an AI model from public data is stealing, then, perhaps if they approve of AI art tools confirmed to have been trained only from authorized images, even if it causes them to face the ire of their peers who still disapprove of it, or even if it causes them to lose out on commissions.

I wouldn’t want to accuse everyone who is down on AI art as being insincere or a dirty rotten motivated-reasoner -many people freely admit their concern is mainly for the livelihood of artists-, but I have seen these discussions play out many times on many different forums. I have rarely seen the ‘AI-art is stealing’ argument withstand even the barest scrutiny. It is often pushed by people who clearly do not understand how these models work, while aggressively accusing their opponents of not understanding how they work. As @Amadan pointed out in his far-better-than-mine post, when faced with the hypothetical of an ethically trained AI, people do not declare their issues are resolved, which indicates that the core of the disagreement is elsewhere. It smacks of post-hoc reasoning.

Which is evidence that the objections are principled rather than merely opportunistic.

I think the actual root of the objections are sympathetic. Artists are high status in online communities. People see a threat to them, empathise, and develop the core feeling of ‘AI-art bad’. From there we are into arguments-as-soldiers territory. Everyone knows that stealing is bad, so if you can associate AI art with stealing, even if the association makes little sense, then that’s a win.

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