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 -
Those don't really work. There have been a bunch of iterations but prompts of the form 'decide what you should do to achieve task X and then do it' don't produce good results in situ and it's not really clear why. I think partly because AI is not good at conceptualising the space of unknowns and acting under uncertainty, and it's not good at collaborating with others. Agentic AI tends to get lost, or muddled, or hare off in the wrong direction. This may be suboptimal training, of course.
I read Zvi he follows AI much closer than I will ever bother to.
There are potential tricks around the problem you talk about. One of the easier ones is asking the AI to prompt engineer itself. "How would you request a task to do X" ... "How would you improve this prompt that is a request to do task X" ... keep doing that and asking separately "which is a better prompt to do task X".
The sense I get is that there is thinking that an AI is doing, but it is mostly like a dice roll. Rolling consecutively for a cumulatively high number isn't a great strategy, but you don't need to do that. You can instead do something where you re-roll for the best possible roll, then move on to the next roll and do the same thing.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link