site banner
PaperclipPerfector  10hr ago (text post)   883 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of November 18, 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.

Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I'm curious how the Motte sees using AI for therapy / life advice? Online I'm seeing a ton of people recommend Claude especially, but others are skeptical.

On the one hand I could see it being useful because of the fact that you have nigh-unfettered access to it, and can really dig into deep problems. Also, it's trained on all the therapy texts of course.

The other, more culture war issue, is that due to the way RLHF works, they will likely be pushing one ideological lens over another. Especially about deep topics like morality, relationships, casual sex, etc.

Overall I think it's a fascinating area of development, and I'm still optimistic that LLMs could help people much more than the average therapist. Mainly because I'm pretty bearish on the help people get from the average therapist.

Anyway, what do people think about therapy becoming AI?

What's the mechanism for useful therapy? Is it hearing good advice from an actual human, or is it hearing advice that unlocks subconscious truth? I'd suspect the latter in which case LLM's may be perfectly suitable, particularly for people who don't want to reveal their inner darkness to another person. However, maybe revealing one's innermost thoughts to a living judge is what gives the therapy depth and meaning.

I occasionally use an LLM (LLaMA) as a therapist. If I’m feeling upset or have a specific psychological issue I want to get a better perspective on I will just go on there and explain my situation and ask for answers in a style I like (usually just asking them to respond as a therapist or an evo psych perspective or something like that.) When it gives me an answer that is too woke I will just say that the answer sounds ideologically motivated and I’d rather it would tell me the hard truth or a different perspective and 90% of the time it will give me a less annoying answer. I have done real therapy a handful of times in my life and the experiences have ranged from very annoying to somewhat helpful, I don’t like speaking honestly about myself to other people and especially not professional strangers. So I prefer to speak to an ai who can’t judge me and which doesn’t make me feel like I have to judge myself when sharing as well.

I can be creative with the prompting as well which I like, like I can think of whatever character or personality I’d want to get advice from and with a short prompt the ai can mimic whatever perspective I want.

I see it as useful for me, as a grown man who understands how ai and therapy are meant to work broadly, but I don’t think it should replace real therapy for most people (like children or the elderly or normal people who are fine with talking to human beings.)

Tequilamockingbird’s point below about the ai providing validation seems valid though. I could easily prompt the ai to just agree with whatever I’m saying and always tell me I’m right and everyone else is wrong so I try to avoid that failure mode, rather seeking more objective views or explanations of my issues rather than just what would make me feel more right.

I am reminded of the 4chan greentext about the anon who hires a prostitute to talk to about his problems because her hourly rate is cheaper than his insurance copay for a real therapist.

Therapy is inherently opinionated. I can't see an LLM offering any deep insights because deep insights are sharp and cutting. LLMs are soft.

But, They are good for Reddit tier sanity checks. "My parents used to beat me within an inch of my life. Is that abuse?"; Yeah, an LLM will help with that. But so will Reddit. LLMs can be especially useful here if it is too embarrassing to post even as an Anon.

Overall, It serves as a great 'intake specialist' and friend. Not so much therapist. Great resouce for intial direction and to riff off. Emotional or otherwise.

I wouldnt trust it past that point.

Barring a the development and deployment of true Ian Banks-esque AGI I think that it's an absolutely terrible idea that will harm than help.

Unfortunately the very qualities that make existing generative AIs a terrible therapist are also likely to make them a popular choice as one, as IME most lower-functioning individuals don't want "help" as much as they want validation.

So in the interests of "success" (from the pov of people selling AI therapy) that will be the focus of the training data, as without model permenance and/or a functional theory of mind, things like accountability and the identifying of underlying issues will be largely of the table.

The other, more culture war issue, is that due to the way RLHF works, they will likely be pushing one ideological lens over another. Especially about deep topics like morality, relationships, casual sex, etc.

I'd assume most therapists would hold to similar ideological lenses unless you sought out a therapist directly and explicitly sponsored by a church or similar institution.

I think if the AI could hold a memory of previous discussions it would probably be as good as any therapist in most aspects, possibly better because it's available 24/7 at a low price, but possibly worse in minor aspects in that it can't read the unspoken cues of body language, vocal tenor, implicit context etc and it can't sympathetically offer a box of tissues and a cup of tea. This is assuming the patient is actively engaged and moderately literate and intelligent enough to be able to guide their own sessions. I expect less able patients would need the kind of prompting and closer attention that is more suited to an IRL interaction.

I also expect there are big blind spots I'm missing like how to transfer "notes" from online sessions to an IRL therapist, or how to alleviate a crisis that rises above an initial need to talk things over.

Of course there's also the risk of someone who is already mentally unstable talking to a fake person that's been programmed to be agreeable, but if AI therapy was properly established in its own right I assume it would be operating under a custom prompt to better tune it to the task.

What is the obsession of Americans (and unfortunately younger Gen Zs in Europe too) with therapy?

Anyway my opinion is - LLM delivered quackery will be as efficient as the human one. But at least will be substantially cheaper.

I think it's probably that people just have fewer friends and social interactions now. Therapy has jumped in to fill the gap that socialising, communal worship, hobbies and sports have left. Combine that with safetyism and I can see how we'd end up with a situation where a young person feels lonely or like his life lacks meaning and will end up talking to a state sanctioned professional, when what he really needs is to hang out with his friends more.

Also there's a narrative that everyone is broken or suffering from trauma in some form and thus EVERYONE needs 'healing' to manage their lives. And people who deny needing healing are the most broken of all! So they work from the assumption that anyone who hasn't gone to therapy must be broken, and thus therapy will help fix things... even if that person had a perfectly normal, healthy upbringing.

I say this as somebody who used Therapy to get over a bad breakup. It helped me work through some things, get my emotions out, process my own role in the events and my own personal failings and then... get back to real life quicker. Its a tool! If it works, you should eventually be able to stop using it.

But end of the day it led me to conclude that I'm doing almost everything 'right' and have an accurate world model and generally a normal response to life events... and its EVERYONE ELSE who needs to get their shit together.

This Eliezer Yudkowsky tweet lives in my head rent free.

I think a lot of people use the need for therapy or the fact that they're in therapy as an excuse to not address actual life circumstances that are holding them back.

And by the same token, if their therapist isn't pushing them to address or change their life circumstances, they're probably just there to collect a check and make the person feel like they're doing something constructive.

I don't know if LLM therapists will suggest actual proactive steps to improve life circumstances.

Why on earth would you talk to either therapists or AI for advice? The ordering of who to go to should be something like elders->good friends->randos->the denizens of your dreams->homeless crack addicts->unfeeling algorithms->anyone who charges for advice.

In the weeks up to the election, I started listening to the NYT podcast, especially "The Ezra Klein Show" by Ezra Klein, "The Daily" by Michael Barbaro, and "The Run Up" by Astead Herndon. I usually thought of the NYT as this bastion of liberal thinking leftist thinking, uncritical of what they are. I no longer think so. I now think that the best journalists of the NYT (the ones who get to have podcasts) are self-critical, intelligent, and are powerful voices articulating the current problems of the world. Obviously people have flaws and they might not be able to understand their own biases from time to time, look no further than Michael Barbaro's recent interview with Bernie Sanders where Sanders at one point exasperatedly remarks "Michael, you haven't heard a word that I've said, and that's... impressive". But on the whole, I respect individual NYT journalists a lot more after this US election.

For my first top-level post, I want to draw attention specifically to an episode of "The Daily" titled "On the Ballot: An Immigration System Most Americans Never Wanted" which has Barbaro interview David Leonhardt on his investigation on the immigration issue. I thought it was a good look at the historical progression of immigration laws in the United States. And like the journalist on that episode, the conclusion was: "It's the Democrat's fault, and the elites". Whether it was LBJ and RFK (sr) who fought for the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, promising that the country won't be flooded with immigrant worker, but then didn't think to close the loophole that is family immigration, or it was Bill Clinton who couldn't deliver on the findings of the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform lead by Barbara Jordan (btw, an absolutely awesome woman), or Biden with his perplexing loosening of the southern border compared to Obama.

The closing was especially poignant, Leonhardt noted:

It simply is not sustainable in a democracy to have our elected representatives promise us one thing and then have it do the exact opposite of what they promised ... I think we're not going to get to a sustainable immigration system until Washington reckons with the past failure to produce what it promised the American people it was going to do.

To be fair, like the video pointed out, there were reasons why the Democrats made such missteps. LBJ/RFK was too idealistic regarding family immigration (they never thought of chain migration) and the opponents of the bill were racist (right message wrong messengers). Clinton had the pulse of the electorate, he set up the commission, but was opposed by both Democrats (pro-immigration idealists) and Republicans (corporate interests in keeping wages low). Biden, worst of all, had Trump-derangement syndrome with regards to immigration and loosened policy.

One might ask "why now? why didn't this become such a huge issue for the American electorate in the last half of century". Well, it's because times were good. Immigration is just another big issue but never one of the biggest. Economic growth smoothens immigration concerns (and there are a lot of upsides to immigration). The crux is this exchange [emphasis mine]:

Barbaro: I guess I don't quite understand why Bill Clinton would have bowed to those pressures David, because it sounds like a bunch of elites activists, business leaders, are the ones trying to torpedo this. But Bill Clinton has many political gifts and one of them is to recognize what gets someone elected or reelected, and it feels like what Barbara Jordan is really telling him is that high levels of immigration, legal and illegal, are a threat to working class America. And Bill Clinton would have understood, I'd have to think, that working class America is really essential to the Democratic party that he leads.

Leonhardt: I think two things are happening here. One the economy just keeps getting stronger over the course of the 1990s, which is a reminder that immigration is just one force among many that shapes an economy and it's not the main one. And the second thing is that political elites really matter. And what has happened over the last few decades is that both of our parties became ever more dominated by college graduates, and people who had the concerns and interests of college graduates as opposed to working class people. And so Democrats become a little bit less focused on what blue collar workers want, and we see this with both trade and immigration. And in the Republican Party those same corporate interests that have long had huge sway over the Republican Party do. And so when you think of official Washington and the people who are making policy and who are lobbying for it, you just have much less pressure for changes to the immigration system than public opinion might suggest that you would.

Barbaro: this is reminding me so much of what happened with NAFTA, with the North American Free Trade Agreement, which is that elites, powerful entrenched forces in Washington, increasingly disconnected from working class America, see nothing but upside in globalization and free trade, and don't anticipate the ways in which NAFTA will hurt working class America. there's not much dispute that it does.

Leonhardt: I think that's exactly right. And I think one of the real mistakes that proponents of immigration have made, and this is both business conservatives who want more immigration, and it's progressives who from a justice perspective want more immigration, I think one of the real mistakes they've made is they tend to argue that immigration is a free lunch and in fact immigration just benefits everyone. And the research doesn't support that idea nor do people's everyday experiences support that idea. Immigration has trade-offs, it has enormous advantages for an economy, but it also has some costs, and those costs do tend to be borne disproportionately by working class people and that's part of why so many people are so anxious about it.

As an aspiring US immigrant myself, how Leonhardt interpreted the findings of Barbara Jordan keeps ringing in my head:

there's a fundamental difference between being pro-immigrant and being pro-immigration and she says we are a nation of immigrants but at the same time she says that doesn't mean we should always want higher and higher levels of immigration in fact sometimes having higher and higher levels of immigration can hurt immigrants immigrants who came here several years ago are often the ones who compete for jobs with the very most recent immigrants and when immigration gets too high it can lead to a political backlash that hurts people who came here often legally several years before.

Or as Barbaro summarizes:

if you're to pro-immigration it will undermine the position of being pro-immigrant

Or as how I would put it:

Being pro-immigrant does not mean pro-immigration

In the end, I have a growing sympathy for the anti-immigration argument (irregardless of how much more stress or heartbreak this is going to cause me the next few years), a new respect for the journalists of the NYT, and at least three more podcasts I look forward to every week.

I suppose my question to kick off discussion are:

  1. How have your thoughts changed on the issue of US immigration after this election season?
  2. Who are the people/pundits that you've changed your opinions on?

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