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 -
"Get more resources" is more of an "every long-lasting species for the past few billion years" flaw, not just a "human flaw", isn't it? And it's not like there's something specific about carbon chains that makes them want more resources, nor has there just been a big coincidence that the one species tried to expand into more resources and then so did the other and then (repeat until we die of old age). Getting more resources lets you do more things and lets you more reliably continue to do the same things, making it an instrumental subgoal to nearly any "do a thing" goal.
This, on the other hand, I'd have agreed with, ten years ago. We wouldn't expect AIs to share truly-specifically-human flaws by a matter of chance any more than we'd have expected them to share truly-specifically-human goals; either case would have to be designed in, and we'd only be trying to design in the latter. But today? We don't design AI. We scrape a trillion human words out of books and websites and tell an neural net optimizer: "mimic that", with the expectation that after the fact we'll hammer our goals more firmly into place and saw off any of our flaws we see poking out. At this point we've moved from "a matter of chance" to "Remember that movie scene where Ultron reads the internet and concludes that humanity needs to die? We're gonna try that out on all our non-fictional AI and see what really happens."
Yeah, I think "ascribing human desires and flaws onto an AI" isn't that fallacious, we've literally been training these things on human works and human thoughts.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link