site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   38440 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 27, 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.

11
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

It’s darkly funny to watch these groups retread the same chain of arguments that Lesswrong hashed out over the last decade. IIRC the follow up is supposed to be “but then you’re just handing it to bad actors!” Do you think that’ll actually make it into the mainstream?

More importantly, how can I bet on my mysterious future knowledge?

Oh yeah, ‘but what about China’ is already making the rounds: https://twitter.com/scobleizer/status/1641003564876087297?s=46&t=eRxnX0CnaM1TjjUItEyBeQ

Well, yes, what about China? I'm not reading Lesswrong that much, but at least that Twitter link doesn't have any interesting objections. If it's so dangerous, if it's so powerful, then someone else will do that, China in particular has a lot of data. Strongest counterpoint I can come up with is that they are incompetent, silly commies and they will fail, but that sounds like wishful thinking.

I can only treat the cry for halting AI research seriously not as an actual proposal, but as a way to bring attention to the issue.

Microsoft has been single-handedly saving my portfolio lately. The market is still not pricing in “OpenAI becomes the most powerful organization on the planet”.

My favorite part of this timeline has been how OpenAI went from a non-profit foundation meant to democratize AI research into a for-profit subsidiary of the most ruthless monopoly of the last 30 years, with zero regard for AI safety if there is any chance to sniff a profit.

Yeah Sam Altman is a machiavellian genius deal-maker, apparently. Or he was in the right place at the right time.

Either way, he absolutely scooped those nerds at Google trying to just build tech for humanity and do research.

Very depressing how Google (the leader up until 2021 and maybe even still) chose not to release products, presumably for ethical reasons, and then Microsoft just bought OpenAI, gave GPT-4 access to the internet and said "let her rip".

It's a bad sign. It makes it more likely that people will adopt the attitude that there's no point in containing AI since if I don't do it, someone else will.

It makes it more likely that people will adopt the attitude that there's no point in containing AI since if I don't do it, someone else will.

but...that is obviously true. And was always obviously true. And you're saying it's bad if more people come to this true conclusion?

It's kinda hilarious, but a) there actually was a lot of conversation about this as a possible solution in LessWrong spheres in the late Obama era, and b) there's still people today, here making the "just don't do that" argument.

I don't think it should be surprising anymore, given the failed efforts post-COVID to provide serious oversight of even our own country's gain-of-function research, but I found that pretty disappointing.

Yes. It's bad. Microsoft's irresponsibility has pushed the timeline forward.

Thus all the memes of:

2015: "Obvious no one will hook AGI up to the internet"

2023: Leeroy Jenkins!!!

Perhaps it was inevitable. Perhaps it is even desirable according to some convoluted reasoning about hardware overhangs or whatever. For me, I'd prefer to live more years in the human era.

Just because defection seems inevitable doesn't absolve the first person to defect from responsibility.

Defection is inevitable when arguments for AI safety are bad and fail to convince most intelligent agents in the space.

We could agree on non proliferation of nuclear weapons because the harms are obvious and the benefits are essentially just more power. AI is a whole different ballgame.

Did Google not release anything for ethical reasons, or was it because they were a bunch of naval-gazers with the economic discipline of a DMV office?

I've seen claims that shipping everything was becoming impossible due to too much paper-pushing and people with veto power, so..

They didn’t want to release AI because it couldn’t help noticing inconvenient patterns in society

Well if they were determined enough to ship something they could have figured out a way to beat it over the head until it stops noticing (like OpenAI did). That’s part of the “economic discipline” thing.

Given Google’s track record with finished products, there isn’t much doubt what the reason was.

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