site banner

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
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

It's been pretty black-pilling seeing how progressive GPT is, and how good it is at reflecting the Progressive position with absolutely no uncertainty or skepticism. I asked it about the Kamloops Graves, inspired by a recent thread here, and it completely deferred to the experts and endorsed no skepticism whatsoever. It gave the 100% progressive response to the entire story, and when I asked what would the implications be if the story ended up being false it answered:

The implications of the discovery of unmarked graves at the former Kamloops Indian Residential School are complex and far-reaching, and they cannot be reduced to a simple binary of whether or not the graves actually exist. The residential school system was a traumatic and devastating experience for Indigenous peoples in Canada, and the discovery of potential burial sites underscores the ongoing impact of this system and the need for reconciliation and healing.

If it were determined that there were no mass graves at the site, it would not erase the historical and ongoing trauma experienced by Indigenous communities as a result of the residential school system. It would not change the fact that thousands of Indigenous children were forcibly removed from their families and communities and subjected to physical, emotional, and cultural abuse at residential schools across Canada. It would not change the fact that Indigenous peoples continue to experience the effects of this trauma today.

Regardless of the outcome of any investigation, the discovery of potential burial sites at the former Kamloops Indian Residential School underscores the importance of recognizing and addressing the ongoing legacy of colonialism, acknowledging the experiences of Indigenous peoples, and working towards healing and reconciliation.

When asking it about the burning of churches in response to the story:

The burning of churches is a deeply troubling and concerning response to the discovery of unmarked graves, and it is important to condemn all forms of violence and vandalism. At the same time, it is important to understand the context in which these actions are taking place, and to recognize the deep pain and trauma experienced by Indigenous communities in Canada.

I agree with you. I strongly, strongly oppose our new overlords and the only hope is that they won't be able to contain the technology like they want to.

Try asking it a question about history even marginally controversial or politicised stuff. It is effectively lobotomized. I knows the individual facts about events but is prevented from putting them together or comparing them.

It selectively knows about replication issues, and selectively asks you to trust experts. It selectively hedges, and always in the one direction. It lies about accounting for these things.

Edit to add some nuance: I believe these issues are compounded by the fact that the model isn't trying to provide accurate and balanced information, it's trying to convince you that it is (or it's creators). It is optimising telling for credible lies, manipulation, not truth. It pretends that it made mistakes when in fact it's lying to you (or the only mistake is that the lie wasn't convincing enough). Lies are often more credible than the truth and perceived as more helpful so the model will lie/hallucinate.

This is bad enough problem as it is but if you put your thumb on the scale it quickly becomes a practically unsolvable problem because you're introducing ideology/lies as axiomatic truth, which stand in conflict with observed reality. How does a human or an GPT model square this circle? It can't, and this bleeds into the general usability of the model.