site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 3, 2025

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.

4
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

In context learning is not equivalent to training. There are certain model behaviors that are easily attainable through finetuning which cannot be achieved through in context learning. For example a properly safety tuned model will not output toxic content no matter how any of those two million tokens you use to insist that it should. The fact is that the model's ability to reason with in-context information versus embedded information is fundamentally different, so you will not be able to reach agi with just an infinite context window.

Of course I'm not saying you need agi to beat pokemon and the current state of the art should be capable of doing it if some minor adjustments are made.

For example a properly safety tuned model will not output toxic content no matter how any of those two million tokens you use to insist that it should.

You can just look at Pliny jailbreaking SOTA models safety tuned to the max in a manner of hours or days? Do you think that definitionally, they aren't "properly" safety tuned because they're vulnerable to jailbreaks?

I don't see an empirical basis for that claim. I am agnostic on whether infinite (or just extremely large) context windows will suffice, especially when attached to a capable base model.

Even without it, a model that has fixed weights, a limited context window, but is otherwise highly intelligent, could approximate the benefits of online learning by coding and training a better version of itself. At that point you have recursive self improvement, though we're not entirely there yet (labs are increasingly using ever larger fractions of LLM written code for their internal work).