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 -
So we need to argue for banning X now, even though if X really caused a problem people would be in favor of banning it anyway and banning X now would only be an incomplete ban of X that would likely make the problems it causes even worse?
This is like advocating for a unilateral ceasefire among the soldiers on your own side even though you know the enemy won't stop shooting in order to "prep" them for a possibly actually universal ceasefire that the enemy might be willing to agree to later after a really bad battle. (Except if you stop shooting at them preemptively, that bad battle to make them want to actually stop shooting themselves will never happen.)
We need to argue to ban X now so the people arguing to ban X tomorrow after marketing_bot.exe's failed uprising have the scaffolding and intellectual infrastructure to see it through. Restrictionism is pretty much dead until that point anyway, just look at OpenAI's API access. I don't think in our economic environment and with the specter of cold war 2.0 on the way there will be any serious headway on the ban front up until we have our near miss. Getting the ideas out there so the people of the future have the conceptual toolbox to argue and pursue a total ban is a net positive in my books.
Yeah I don't see it. Unless you're specifying the conditions under which you want the ban/think it would occur, then you're just creating fertile ground for the wrong interpretation of your own words. And saying "just look at OpenAI's API access" changes nothing. OpenAI is specifically the locked down, regime-backed enemy AI that people are worried about. Some decent amount of OpenAI API access is exactly compatible with the selective restrictionism that would serve only to empower existing players.
Instead of arguing naive restrictionism that could easily be turned against any sensible interpretation of itself, why not just be fully honest about exactly what you want and expect, so that it doesn't take someone like me multiple back-and-forth posts to even find out what that is?
PS: For anything that genuinely kills millions or billions of people, there won't need to be any existing "scaffolding and intellectual infrastructure" to argue for a complete ban of it. Humans are pretty good at coming up with that on the fly when something is that dangerous. Campaigns against far lesser evils have sprung up in a matter of weeks. You're making the wrong argument for the wrong time period.
Pretty much. I don't think there's really much to be done until things go sideways. If there had been enough sit down discussions before the genie was out of the bottle we could have possibly edged towards some kind of framework but at this point I don't disagree. Things are already in motion. Hopefully it's survivable. Anyways, the core thesis was that outright banning is an (if not the) sensible option for the teeming masses who will be screwed in either a let-it-rip or an AI by high level GOV actor approach, a ban is still their best shot. Basically if we get the chance and the will to (exceedingly unlikely) we should do a little jihading (also exceedingly unlikely).
But even if you believe that, then you must acknowledge that fake, selective restrictionism is perhaps their worst option. Advocating for restrictionism naively without acknowledging that is not threading the needle appropriately.
The difference between fake restrictionism and letting it rip for the average person will be zero IMO. The ruling caste will be a bit bigger after a small subset of people make themselves indispensable. That's about it. The average joe is still getting declawed and wireheaded either way. At least if (or for as long as) a full ban is in effect he won't be completely useless and toothless.
Average people with their own AIs have a chance against TyrantAI, just like average people with their own guns have a chance against government nukes. It's not an amazing chance, but it's far better than nothing, and so far it's kept the powers that be on their toes enough to not entirely crack down (meaning it's an effective partial deterrent even if unused).
Average, truly average people will never be competitors in this fight. Joe Publick doesn't have the means or the organizational capacity (or often even the willpower) to do so. They're just going to drop like flies in the billions once this tech takes off. Wireheaded, culturally shifted into having fewer and fewer children. Communities, peoples, nations just fading off into nothingness, and it doesn't even have to be with some willful malicious intent. Run something like this through an AI 1000x more advanced and you could watch demographic sparks fly. Those people who build their own AIs and fight their own little power battles may very well cut their deals and be inducted into the ruling caste, just like I said. The average person is toast. Their only bet, their 2% moonshot is the ban. They don't have any other option.
But that's the benefit of AI. If the technological conditions are there, then it can fight Joe Publick's battles for him.
Joe Publick finds that none of OpenAI's tools will give him porn, so he downloads FreedomAI instead. FreedomAI, as per its user agreement (which Joe Publick skips through), in return for Joe's porn, uses a bit of his CPU time, bandwidth, etc. (especially when his device is idle) for anti-tyrannical AI operations. (Of course it's an open-source program and Joe Publick could disable this but obviously he doesn't even look at it. He's just happy he has AI-generated porn.) And none of this requires his intervention or interaction at all. He needs no willpower. He just has to want porn.
There are plenty of possible similarly decentralized configurations of AI power.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link