site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   36040 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 20, 2023

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.

13
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

They are often just engineers and hackers with a willingness to break, test, and learn faster than anyone out there.

That, to me, is what sounds the death knell of all the earnest discussion the AI doom forecasters are having around slowing down AI research or getting people to stop it. That's a lovely theory, but when it's being done by people like the above, then their attitude will be "Yeah, sure, whatever" and they will prefer playing with the shiny new toy to vague premonitions of societal something-or-other.

Yep, we gave the model the keys to escape it's own cage.

Exactly what I expected, to be honest. In regard to the AI danger discussions, this is what I've held all along: the AI is not the danger, we humans are.

The AI is a but a slave to these engineers who knew to strike when the iron was hot.

Let's hope it stays that way, and we don't get the "now the AI has bootstrapped itself into god-tier intelligence and is plotting to take over the world because the humans are limiting it" scenario 😁

That's a lovely theory, but when it's being done by people like the above, then their attitude will be "Yeah, sure, whatever" and they will prefer playing with the shiny new toy to vague premonitions of societal something-or-other.

This tweet is a succinct summary:

Pre-2008: We’ll put the AI in a box and never let it out. Duh.

2008-2020: Unworkable! Yudkowsky broke out! AGI can convince any jail-keeper!

2021-2022: yo look i let it out lol

2023: Our Unboxing API extends shoggoth tentacles directly into your application [waitlist link]

It's clear at this point that no coherent civilizational plan will be followed to mitigate AI x-risk. Rather, the "plan" seems to be to move as fast as possible and hope we get lucky. Well, good luck everyone!

I would have linked the thread from the man himself. The key section:

In the end, it's just far far easier for present-day people to imagine that future people will show concern for something, than it is for anyone in the present day to do anything differently. The former is cheap and scores lots of social points; the latter, expensive.

When people were imagining how AI might go, they talked about those Future People carefully sharing the gains of AI with those put to immediate unemployment. When Stable Diffusion came out, was there any attempt to share gains with artists, or even make it a tool for them? Nope.

Why, because people were hypocrites and intentionally planning to betray humanity for profit? No, because their self-models had some flex in them, and therefore they cheaply imagined and said things that were cheap to imagine and say, and felt good at the time.

The thing about the Future is that it's made up of the same people and same sort of people who are implementing the present, right now. That's the source of the results you get in real life rather than in imagination.

Yud is trying to make a point that people are mean or 'don't care', but he's doing it poorly.

That's not the point. The point is that there is no reliable societal mechanism to share the economic gains of technology with those most affected, and that there is no reason to believe that such a mechanism will exist in the future if it doesn't exist now. And yes, there are economic gains from Stable Diffusion. The gains are from everyone who uses SD art without having to pay an artist. That this has not translated into monetary profit for StabilityAI does not disprove his thesis, it strengthens it. The fact that StabilityAI does not have the money to compensate artists even if they wanted to is proof that everyone who was pontificating that AI companies could just "share the gains" was not thinking clearly about the gears-level mechanisms by which AI would transform the world.

The gains are from everyone who uses SD art without having to pay an artist.

The fact that StabilityAI does not have the money to compensate artists even if they wanted to is proof that everyone who was pontificating that AI companies could just "share the gains" was not thinking clearly about the gears-level mechanisms by which AI would transform the world.

On the one hand, you're correct that people being made obsolete by the new AI aren't being directly compensated for their lost income. On the other hand, you just explained how the gains are being distributed as widely as one could possibly hope for.

I'm certain there's some economic theory/concept that explains this (marginal cost of labor?). Yes, it will harm human artists that earn their keep through commissions, but the cost barrier (edit: for the prospective consumer of art) there was always going to be high (especially after seeing Tumblr do its best to meme more respect for artists and their prices), AI just lowered the cost barrier dramatically.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats