site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   35417 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 3, 2022

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.

24
Top New Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I simply thoroughly disagree with this sentiment, and I am quite certain that I am not exceptional here. The process is important, the social context is important.

I would probably go as far as to posit applicability of some sort of labor theory of value: if you print out a random photograph, nobody will value it very highly, but if you paint the contents of the photograph on canvas, it will immediately be seen as having more value. Even more so, if we build technology that allows us to make a painting with a some kind of a gantry CNC painting machine, it’s product will be seen as less valuable than something that human painted by hand.

I think the above sentiment is shared by most normies, whereas your comment exhibits rather postmodernist ideals that few people actually share, as shown by revealed preference. Why are people spending millions on original artworks, instead of hanging cheap replicas that are exactly as beautiful? Because they strongly disagree with you.

I think most normies don't entirely care about the process. I could be wrong, but it really wasn't until recent decades where most people actually got to peer into behind-the-scenes stuff for things like movies, music, and video games. Now, there are definitely consumers and audiences of those things who do care and want to know, but at the same time, probably the broad majority of people in the world don't stop to think about how things are made, but just the thing in front of them.

Yeah, check out how few people view art streams vs viewing the same artist's art. Even very popular artists usually have less viewers than some no-name twitch game streamer or 2view v-tuber.

People into the process are mostly other artists trying to crib notes.

So what, specifically, is the source of that value? My intuition is that if the same painting were made not by a machine or a career-artist, but by a young child, or better yet, an animal, it would be seen as even more valuable, still. (Well, disregarding the effects of name recognition that can balloon chosen artists' work to staggering prices.)

At the risk of making things too meta, it seems to me like this value stands in proportion to how unusual (and thus rare and potentially otherwise-useful) the displayed skill seems to be. A great painter may be of extraordinary use in producing other great paintings that you want. A child prodigy, or an intelligent animal, may portend greater things still.

But a machine is just a machine, whose capabilities we know, just like we wouldn't care about the works of an animal if it were just an accountable product of instinct. The more of a good surprise it is, the more we treasure it, it seems.

But this is just my impression and I would be very glad to hear others with better theories.

I think you are in fact an exception, not the rule. The process isn't what matters to most, unless you happen to have an interest in learning about it. What matters is not the process, but the output.

And this isn't just for art. This is generally true. I personally enjoy programming and learning more about how different programmers have solved particular problems. I'm in the extreme minority, though. Most people don't give a shit, they want their software to do a task for them and don't care how it was made. A statistician may care about the beautiful mathematical model they use, but most people just want to be told the results. And so on, for pretty much any discipline you can imagine. People just do not care about the process by which things are made, unless they happen to have a particular interest in that topic.

Not to mention that the AI model itself is built using beautiful and creative mathematical ideas and engineering principles. The code can be elegant etc.

Why are people spending millions on original artworks, instead of hanging cheap replicas that are exactly as beautiful?

To show off. Jesus didn't say "yo, here's a loaf of bread, it's only one, so it's very valuable, make sure to hoard it". He instead multiplied the loaves of bread and the fish to feed the crowd. Sharing is good. If you have a reliable way to copy something, you should do it. Same way I think about file sharing, free software etc.

If what you say is true, there is no cause for concern! If there is some ineffable quality of realness to authentic human-made art, and revealed preference does indeed show people prefer it, then AI art is not a threat to real artists.

I wonder why all the artists don't have that same confidence.

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