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 -
Yes, with any seams showing. Obviously we can't enforce a rule we didn't detect you breaking.
Following on to @Corvos's comment, below, I would compare it to using AI to write books and short stories (something I'm aware of as someone involved in the writing and literary community) or make art. As you know, there now a bazillion people churning out AI-generated fiction and art, such that this is overwhelming a lot of traditional venues. The Kindle store is full of them, and KU authors are bemoaning the fact that not only are they competing against each other, but now they are competing against AI-published books by the thousands. There are even courses available now (by grifters) teaching you how to generate books with AI which you can then sell on Amazon.
My Facebook feed is full of "Reels" with increasingly realistic AI content, everything from Chinese fishermen dragging an improbable sea monster out of the water to bears waving down motorists to help rescue their cubs, to actresses dressed in outfits and performing in movies they never appeared in.
We can't stop it, most of it is crap, and right now, most of it is fairly easily detectable, but it's getting harder. The problem is not so much "AI is crap" (that will become less and less true) but "AI produces so much content so easily that even if you are looking for human content, it's becoming harder to find it."
The Motte is for people to talk to each other, and while I'm not terribly worried about a few clever lads titter-titter-tee-heeing to themselves about what brilliant little scamps they are for inserting AI content into their posts that the mods didn't detect, I am concerned about the sorts of discussions we're already seeing in this thread, with people using AI to sling walls of text at each other. The value in requiring you to, like, write what you researched and are citing yourself is not that AI can't do just as good a job of producing a Wikipedia-level summary, it's that we aren't here to read copy&pasted Wikipedia articles. Or copy&pasted AI content. (Most of which is still pretty boring and spiritless.) The best posters aren't just the ones who write long effort posts, it's the ones who write interestingly. Just like AI can now write an entire YA fantasy novel with a coherent plot and characters, but it will be... limp, dull, flavorless prose with no spark of genius or creativity or innovation.
@DaseindustriesLtd thinks AI is already intelligent and as good a conversationalist as a human. Well, good for him, he can chat with AIs all he likes. Elsewhere. And it may be that AIs are what doom the Motte, not all the other things people have predicting would doom the Motte for years. But for the time being, yes, we aren't instituting a hard ban on posting anything output by ChatGPT in any context, but the context had better be something that makes a point about AI itself, not just using the AI to do the work of actually typing words that you are too lazy to type yourself.
More options
Context Copy link