site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of February 17, 2025

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.

4
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Every man a project manager!

I do think AI has made programmers more productive, and that it is about to make them much more productive to the point where they might be essentially project managers.

What remains to be seen is what economic benefit that will have. For example, if there are 10x as many video games as there were before, do they create 10x the economic value. Of course not.

As the economy becomes more digital, it becomes a lot harder to quantify gains in GDP. In 1987, Legend of Zelda might have cost $50. Today, for almost the same price, you can buy a Zelda game with far better graphics and a much longer story line. But does the consumer today get more enjoyment from 2025 Zelda that from 1985 Zelda? I don't think so. The hedonic treadmill is real.

Similarly, does the economy grow from making TikTok 20% more addictive. Does it grow from adding AI-generated thots to Instagram? Or from making AI girlfriends? A lot of the stuff that happens in software, maybe even most of it, is just not that important or even counterproductive.

Somewhat related...

The dream of reducing drudgery by offloading it to AI might fall flat too. AI will make it possible for a human lawyer to easily glean information from a 1000 page document. But it will also make it possible for that same human lawyer to produce a 100,000 page contract of dense legalese. Existing improvements in technology have seemingly only increased the demand for lawyers.

I can’t imagine that with the current pace of development at cheap conversational LLMs, soon we won’t start seeing RPGs that are truly open world with actually intelligent NPCs or strategy games where the AI controlled opponents are truly strategising and conspiring etc.

What remains to be seen is what economic benefit that will have. For example, if there are 10x as many video games as there were before, do they create 10x the economic value. Of course not.

Video games are (mostly) saturated, although I think that AI can reduce the amount of manpower required to make a AAA game and therefore encourage experimentation and proliferation in ways we haven't seen since the 2000s.

More importantly, though, there are huge realms of software development that are mostly untouched because they're tedious and uninteresting to skilled, highly-paid software engineers. I think that AI-driven software development could vastly improve the quality and user experience for 99% of the software that ordinary people (not tech bros) use.

Anecdotally, I'm making good progress on some personal software projects now I don't have to write all the tedious bits after work.

I won't consider video games saturated until developers can create faster than "content locusts" want to consume. Currently games that provide a lot of playtime relative to developer time still have significant gaps between major deployments. Path of Exile for example had approximately three minor and one major release per year. Given that most players play 1-2 weeks after a release this produces 4-8 weeks of player time per year of development time. If you're into a more niche genre you might be looking at one or two good titles per decade.

I won't consider video games saturated until developers can create faster than "content locusts" want to consume.

Some people might argue that we already quietly hit this point well before the current AI craze. The struggles of the modern gaming industry and the indie scene are partly because it's (perceived as) hard to peel chronic Minecraft/Fortnite/COD/etc. players away from their comfort games.

That might be what people say but the real issue is that the games are mediocre trash. As soon as anything decent actually is released people flock to that game.

All this is (almost) only cope for bad developers.

Even if you're in a major genre like RPGs you might still only get a good game once every couple of years. That there is a sea of uninspired and boring shit out there doesn't really matter.

The only parts of the market that really are closing in on being saturated are the ones where the playtime is essentially infinite, like competitive multiplayer games.

What is happening is perhaps comparable to the book market. Does there being practically no barrier to entry mean that the market is saturated? No, it means the market for mediocre slop is saturated, which is of so low quality that the vast majority of prospective consumers have negative interest in it, or only use it as a sort of background noise to fill time. Some might even argue that there are less worthwhile books to read despite there being more words written than ever before.

For example, if there are 10x as many video games as there were before, do they create 10x the economic value. Of course not.

Bingo.

I am slightly hopeful that 3D printing (and I guess 3D printing + AI) will get us to some good places in the tangible meatspace. I also suspect that, if Space Economy becomes real, there might be a lot of possibilities for material improvement (some of which might be tied to white collar type jobs, like Martian Rock Rover Supervisor).

But it will also make it possible for that same human lawyer to produce a 100,000 page contract of dense legalese. Existing improvements in technology have seemingly only increased the demand for lawyers.

Yes, and this is a horrible thought. I would be quite happy with a law banning contracts that cannot be meaningfully understood in 5 minutes. That's not a law banning even per se 100,000 pages of dense legalese but I should be able to read a contract in one sitting with no surprises. Same with a law.

(Lawyers will love this once they realize it means litigating over whether the fine print was adequately represented by the topline!)

I would be quite happy with a law banning contracts that cannot be meaningfully understood in 5 minutes. That's not a law banning even per se 100,000 pages of dense legalese but I should be able to read a contract in one sitting with no surprises. Same with a law. (Lawyers will love this once they realize it means litigating over whether the fine print was adequately represented by the topline!)

This ties into an axiom of my political views. Give or take:

Once a person is affected by more words of law than it is possible for them to read and understand in their lifetime, corruption is effectively inevitable.

(Which then feeds forward into constitutions, hierarchical laws, kitchen-sink bills, etc, etc.)

Once a person is affected by more words of law than it is possible for them to read and understand in their lifetime, corruption is effectively inevitable.

Aha. I love this.