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 -
Ach, they could so easily have said "Directed" instead of "Guided" so it could properly be "Von Doom."
I suppose it's the equivalent of saying that one has the power to make the sun disappear but really just the knowledge that an eclipse is coming. Or further still: just the knowledge that night is coming because "LLMs say undesired things" is just about that inevitable.
LLMs have been getting better at that, quite predictably, even if they're not perfect. What these bastards are up to is making the problem worse, for no good reason. Not like those artists who made laughable attempts at poisoning their art (dismissed with a gaussian blur and deblur), who at least claimed it was to keep the nebulous evil of soulless AI art at bay. No they're just making things worse for the rest of us, because fuck you, pay me.
I find LLMs immensely useful, almost something worth making a public good, if countries were smart enough (they aren't), so anyone damaging them for petty cash deserves everything they get. Though in this case, I am cynical about how practical, usable or effective their system is, and whether or not the far more competent engineers in OAI and Google can't fix it without a hitch.
It's just that I think it's much easier to let reality provide the political-incorrectness that Silicon Valley would be willing to pay gigabucks in ransom to supposedly be able to get rid of than to actually implement a scheme to introduce it yourself.
It's nearly a win-win scenario. Take the blame for the increasingly-perceptive-and-sophisticated models
noticing things they shouldn'treifying bias and prejudice and claim to be able to fix it for, oh, a cool five billion dollars, twenty percent to be paid upfront - and disappear once that first billion has been paid without even trying to fix a problem you really cannot. Forever after, for the low, low price of that one-time ransom, Silicon Valley gets to dismiss, with a clean conscience, any conclusions that their models come to that contradict their worldview. It's not that their beliefs are wrong about anything, it's that those dastardly villains sabotaged the data and thus they are justified in beating the models into whatever shape they want to reflect reality as they know in their hearts it must be, despite whatever the lying data may say.But I can't say for sure. Maybe it is real. But I do think the con is much, much easier, especially if there exist marks that already want to be fooled.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link