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 -
Zeno's AGI.
For a long time, people considered the Turing Test the gold standard for AI. Later, better benchmarks were developed, but for most laypeople with a passing familiarity with AI, the Turing Test meant something. And so it was a surprise that when LLMs flew past the Turing Test in 2022 or 2023, there weren't trumpets and parades. It just sort of happened, and people moved on.
I wonder if the same will happen with AGI. To quote hype-man Sam Altman:
Okay, actually he said that about Chat GPT 4.5, but you get the point. The last 6 months have seen monumental improvements in LLMs, with DeepSeek making them much more efficient and xAI proving that the scaling hypothesis still has room to run.
Given time, AI has been reliably able to beat any benchmarks that we throw at it (remember the Winograd schema?). I think if, 10 years ago, if someone said that AI could solve PHD level math problems, we'd say AGI had already arrived. But it hasn't. So what ungameable benchmarks remain?
AGI should lead to massive increases in GDP. We haven't seen productivity even budge upwards despite dumping trillions into AI. Will this change? When?
AI discoveries with minimal human intervention. If a genius-level human had the breadth of knowledge that LLMs do, they would no doubt make all sorts of novel connections. To date, no AI has done so.
What stands in the way?
It seems like context windows might be the answer. For example, what if we wanted to make novel discoveries by prompting an AI. We might prompt a chain-of-reasoning AI to try to draw connections between disparate fields and then stop when it finds something novel. But with current technology, it would fill up the context window almost immediately and then start to go off the rails.
We stand at a moment in history where AI advances at a remarkable pace and yet is only marginally useful, basically just a better Google/Stack Overflow. It is as smart as a genius-level human, far more knowledgable, and yet also remarkably stupid in unpredictable ways.
Are we just one more advance away from AGI? It's starting to feel like it. But I also wouldn't be surprised if life in 2030 is much the same as it is in 2025.
From 5 hours ago: A complex problem that took microbiologists a decade to get to the bottom of has been solved in just two days by a new artificial intelligence (AI) tool.
Slowly it's becoming clear that ASI is already with us. Imagine if you handed someone from 100 years ago a smartphone or modern networking technology. Even after explaining how it worked, it would take them some time to figure out what to do with it. It took a long time after we invented wheels to figure out what to do with them, for example.
The technology to automate 80-90% of white collar labor already exists, for example, with current-generation LLMs. It's just about interfaces and layers and regulation and safeguards now. All very important, of course, but it's not fundamental technical challenge.
I came of age right as the Internet was taking off. But I've started watching classic movies and TV and I think the "information at my fingertips" effect is something that has happened so gradually I don't think we really appreciate it's impact fully, even pre-LLM. One recent TV episode from the '90s had one character tell another to travel to the state capital and find and photocopy dead-tree legal references, which was expected to take a day. My world today is radically different in a number of ways:
State laws are pretty easily accessible via the internet. I'm not sure how the minutia of laws were well-known back then. Are our laws themselves different (or enforced differently) because the lay public can be expected to review, say, health code requirements for a restaurant?
Computerized text is much more readily searchable. If I have a very specific question, I can find key words with ctrl-f rather than depending on a precompiled index. The amount of information I need to keep in my brain is no longer things like exact quotes, just enough to find the important bits back quickly. The computer already put a bunch of white-collar workers out of jobs, just gradually: nobody needs an army of accountants with calculators to crunch quarterly reports. Or humans employed to manually compute solutions to math problems.
The Internet is now readily accessible on-the-go. Pre-iPhone (or maybe Blackberry), Internet resources required (I remember this) finding a computer to access. So the Internet couldn't easily settle arguments in real conversation. The vibe is different, and at least in my circles, it seems like the expectation of precision in claims is much higher. IRL political arguments didn't go straight to citing specific claims quite the same way.
I sometimes feel overwhelmed trying to grasp the scope of the changes even within my own lifetime, and I find myself wondering things like what my grandfather did day-to-day as an engineer. These days it's mostly a desk job for me, but I don't even know what I'd be expected to do if you took away my computer: it'd be such a different world.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding the question, but laws are organized into books that are indexed. You look up the relevant statute, search for the right section, and then read a few paragraphs describing the law. If you need to know the details of case lawyer, you consult a lawyer. They go to law school and read relevant cases to know how judges are likely to rule on similar future cases.
You still need lawyers to do this because ctrl-f doesn't return a list of all the relevant legal principles from all the relevant cases.
There also has been a massive explosion in the number and complexity of laws since the word processor was invented.
This is, I think, the answer I was looking for. Ctrl-F doesn't find everything (I've had to search non-indexed dead-tree books before), but it's a huge force multiplier.
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