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 -
There's this thing called advent of code (AoC) going on right now, it's a yearly speed programming challenge. Each day of december, between the 1st and the 25th a new problem is unlocked at midnight NY time. People tried to use chatgpt, as well as more specialized programming language models to participate. ChatGPT started to struggle on day 3, the specialized models failed on day 5. The first week is all very simple problems with long detailed explanations and all you have to do is essentially follow the instructions in the explanation to solve the problem.
Then there's this interaction https://twitter.com/YossiKreinin/status/1600806007911120898, where chatgpt doesn't know what it means for a word to end in i.
Then there's this interaction I had about timezones:
What's interesting to me about chatgpt is that it may help elucidate what it means to be intelligent by being a close enough imitation that is nonetheless completely unintelligent.
Most people I have ever met end up in a no intelligent back and forth like that on some subject if you talk to them enough. I'm genuinly not convinced that (a lot of) human thought isn't just a slightly better tuned verison of what chatgpt is doing tbh.
More options
Context Copy link
I've heard worse from undergraduates in office hours and other people who are just zoned out, including myself, and this latest idea that surely True Intelligence must be hiding in the performance gap between a slightly dull/intoxicated/sleepy human and a well-educated human at the top of their game strikes me as textbook god-of-the-gaps reasoning. At this point I'm not particularly impressed by any statement of the form "all the things AI does are easy and it won't do this hard thing it can't currently do anytime soon", unless the prediction of what exactly the easy and hard thing are was registered like 5 years ago.
ChatGPT's training wasn't based on the pronunciations and its tokenizer does not reflect the alphabetic spelling of words; from the point of view of its representation, the question is almost comparable to what it would be like for you to have to come up with words whose closest Chinese translation's first syllable is in fourth tone. The real problem here is that ChatGPT has not (yet?) been trained to understand what it doesn't know (as I would guess that its training set does not contain an appropriate set of examples of intellectual humility in Q&A), and instead has a general tendency to just confidently answer even if it has to talk out of its ass. This, too, is all too common in humans.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link