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.
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.
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!
User ID: 2139
Am I the only one who feels sympathetic to the lawyers?
The media and the tech companies have been hyping GPT like crazy: "It's going to replace all our jobs." "You're foolish if you don't learn how to use GPT." "Google/Microsoft is replacing their search engine with GPT."
So these lawyers give it a try and it appears to work and live up to the hype, but it's really gaslighting them.
As the OP suggests, it's a question of numbers. Let's say 1 in 10,000 lawsuits are valid. But you don't know which one, so it takes some time to figure out. That's a massive amount of resources. Absolute immunity allows the court system to simply toss all those lawsuits out.
It's the frivolous lawsuit problem on steroids. Every person a judge ruled against or a prosecutor prosecutes has reason to file against that judge or prosecutor.
Personally, I prefer a system where you mark your PR comment with tag that explicitly calls out how important you think the issue is. It allows you to be complete, but also convey how much you care. I use:
MUST - I think this is an error of logic, not meeting requirements, or otherwise a major concern. I will fail the PR over this unless you convince me otherwise.
SHOULD - Probably should change this to make it more clear or adhere to standards. But if you feel strongly that your way is correct, I'm not really going to fuss.
MAYBE - random ideas, nitpicks, etc. Stuff that you can adopt or not at your leisure, and I don't really care at all.
Best theory I've seen is that normally radar filters out slow-moving objects to avoid false positives. After the large balloon last week, NORAD recalibrated and went looking for slow-moving objects and found several that were real.
The most interesting explanation along those lines is that it dates from the PMC increasing investment in the stock market. Mutual funds, 401ks, etc. All of that really started getting emphasized in the 90s. This investment aligned the PMC with capital, rather than labour. So the political beliefs shifted to something which capital could support, could pretend to be the good guys. Also labour could be weakened and outsourced, and this would be morally okay because of the their newly questionable beliefs.