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 -
I think this is an interesting 'shot across the bow.'
We have language analysis technology that includes LLMs that makes these huge bills easier to search and catch the 'hidden' spending provisions tucked in there, and translate complicated legalese into mostly plain English.
This results in increased 'legibility' in the most literal sense. The text of any bill, no matter how large, can be instantly processed and made comprehensible to the constituents well before the vote is called.
Add in general anti-FedGov sentiment, and the fact that Elon is popular and has an uncensorable platform, and this could change the game.
Where before the mainstream news might have picked out like 3-5 of the provisions that would piss off one side or the other, while ignoring the really egregious stuff in the bill, now there is no 'safety through obscurity.'
Not clear what congress' counterplay is, honestly.
If Elon wants to, he can set up PACs to fund primary challengers for any Republicans who defect, to make sure that there are consequences locked in for later, to prevent any politicians from relying on the public's short memory.
This is a great point. LLM's are changing the game in a big way and it's hard to see where it ends.
Corporate lawyers have often used the equivalent of a denial-of-service attack to overwhelm smaller opponents. You are ordered to turn in documents, so you turn in 1 million pages and laugh because there's no way your opponent can read them at $500/hour.
Of course, the natural end game is that all law is done by LLMs. O1 is arguably already superhuman at parsing large documents. Recently, there was a bogus scientific study about plastic from cooking spatulas causing negative health effects. It turns out the authors made an order-of-magnitude error in a basic calculation. It was missed by human reviewers. Someone ran it through O1. It found the error immediately.
Lawyers defend obfuscation because it places them at the top of a power hierarchy. But this will change. Soon. The future is LLMs that chow through a MILLION pages in a few hours, with superhuman patience and memory.
All in all, shorter and simpler is better. Warren Buffett has bought billion dollar companies with a 1 page contract. Lawyers think they need 1000 pages. Well I'm here to tell you that we can make a MILLION page contract. So now lawyers need to make the argument "the contract needs to be short enough for me to parse, but too long for you to parse". Good luck.
Most SPAs are long because you want to force the other side to disclose so you make them rep to certain things.
There is also some legalese.
There's a plausible argument that legalese is like a ceremony where you slaughter a cow and then look at the entrails to take the omens. It makes people feel that ceremonies were observed while having no effect on on the actual outcome. It works especially well on people who are a little dim.
"You write it up all nice and fine, and I’ll sign it."
Few things fit the midwit meme greater than people who are obsessed with "legalese". They view it like a talisman that can protect them from evil forces. But nothing can.
LLMs are going to gish gallop the shit out of every lawyer alive today. They probably deserve it.
It really is funny. As a lawyer, I laugh when people try to write something formal and start throwing around “big words.”
More options
Context Copy link
I’m not a lawyer, but I am extremely suspicious about claims of the form “oh yeah [X profession] is a bunch of bullshit, it’s actually really simple and easy but they make it more complicated than it has to be”, because people say it about my own profession (programming) all the time in cases where I know it to be false.
Do you have any examples of legalese that you think could be profitably and straightforwardly simplified?
More options
Context Copy link
In my experience, the legalese is there not for the people actually signing the contract, but instead for the people trying to resolve disputes about the contract years down the line. You're not trying to snow the other side; you're trying to get the completely unrelated judge or future lawyer to take your side in the future. Many of the strange phrasings are references to standard language which can be reliably interpreted in a particular way so long as the standard remains current, or attempts to cover every possible base and contingency.
It's not the lawyers you need to gish gallop, it's the judges. And if you do that, you're not going to like the results. You want courts to be predictable.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link