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 -
Imagine the same exchange, but instead of "I have prompted DeepSeek...", you opened with "I asked my secretary...". 90% of the annoyance that your post causes would already be there - essentially you open with an announcement that your prospective readers are not worth your own time, but should still dedicate their time to read something that you think it is important for them to. That it is AI, which tends to send some people into speciesist rage and is generally associated with time-wasting shovelware, is just the cherry on top; you could perhaps get close to the effect with "I asked someone in our Bangladeshi call center...". That you would have no trouble producing as good or better only deepens the offense, as it just makes salient the question of why you didn't (...because you thought the as good or worse wall of text should be good enough for us?).
As a matter of fact, I found the wall of text worthwhile mostly only insofar as it is a good illustration of R1's capacity for writing and summarisation. Engaging with it at face value, I got the same feeling as when reading the arguments of some bombastic and eloquent 16 year old on an internet forum of yore - the prose showed cracks (most obviously in the form of mismatched metaphors, such as "rewriting equilibrium", or a "siren call" being experienced at a frontier - a new one? As opposed to which old one?), and through the cracks you could glean that much of the inside is hollow. Good prose, I think, should be produced by starting with a solid thesis or web of theses which could stand on their own without rhetorical bluster, and then iteratively working out a good way to present them in an appealing way. Whatever you crammed into the context before letting the model produce evidently serves as some sort of meat and bone to hang the text on, but the fit is loose (just imagine the 16 year old writing manically after having inhaled Beyond Good and Evil). The result instead just comes across as having come to be by a process of writing something that sounds cool, then writing something that sounds cool in combination with the thing that precedes it, and so on until you end with a thing that sounds like a cool conclusion.
Of course, this is in fact exactly how LLMs write (unless you cough up the tokens and time to make it CoT an iterative writing process, which I imagine does not happen in whatever chat interface you used?). It is also how bombastic and eloquent 16 year olds write (I know because I was a 16 year old once, and was both more bombastic and more eloquent than I am now). You evidently can evolve from that to the sort of writing that is befitting of jaded and rhetorically washed-up 30somethings, but that development is neither straightforward nor optional.
More options
Context Copy link