site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   38433 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.

Pascal's Mugging is about a probability which is acknowledged to be negligible, which the mugger asserts should still be sufficient for you to pay up given expected value. I don't see how you're getting that out of any actual proponent of AI safety.

Are you just conflating "we don't understand what we're doing so we can't know that it won't kill us" to "we can't know that it won't kill us", analogous to "we can't know God doesn't exist"? Because the argument from Yudkowsky et al is more like "the default outcome is 'it kills us', as the default out

Additionally, human extinction is (presumably) towards the tail end of a spectrum of possible negative outcomes of unaligned AGI. Outcomes where AGIs cause massive economic/envirionment/biological/social damage are also possible. They also could be more likely: "Why don't we just turn it off?" is not a sensible question if the harmful AGI is the equivalent of crack (or the internet).

Additionally, human extinction is (presumably) towards the tail end of a spectrum of possible negative outcomes of unaligned AGI.

It's on said spectrum, and it's one of the more negative possibilities (the worst is S-risk i.e. "AI tortures everyone for a very long time"). I see no reason to think that implies it's low-probability (which is implicit in calling something a tail). Something can just be terrible, it doesn't have to be moderate most of the time.

The problem with your "everything is mildly shit and we can't co-ordinate to turn the AI off" scenario is that if the AI doesn't care about humans existing then this isn't an endpoint - it's an influence war that sooner or later ends with either the AI being turned off or the AI gaining sufficient control to murder us all.

I see no reason to think that implies it's low-probability (which is implicit in calling something a tail).

Sorry, I should have specified "tail end of the utility spectrum." As you suggest, a very negative utility event can be very likely. In the case of AI, I don't think that precise probability estimates (or even confidence about the sample space) is sensible, but my point was that there are a lot of bad things that can happen short of human extinction.

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