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 -
What if our fundamentals are exactly backwards?
New to The Motte, looking for constructive, critical discussion.
Here's an example of what I mean by a "fundamental":
Every economic system that has seemed credible to most people since the dawn of civilization has revolved around the legal establishment and safeguarding of property through the concept of ownership.
But what is ownership? I have my own ideas, but I asked ChatGPT and was surprised that it pretty much hit the nail on the head: the definitional characteristic of ownership is the legal right to deprive others.
This has been such a consistently universal view that very few people question it. Even fewer have thought through a cogent alternative. Most people go slack-jawed at the suggestion that an alternative is possible.
Here's something from years back, before I'd zeroed in on the perverse nature of ownership:
Anyone want to brainstorm a viable alternative to "ownership"?
/images/17459352527399495.webp
doubt
doubt
I for one do not welcome our robot overlords.
Okay, reading everything you have posted so far, I think you are using ChatGPT to generate some or all of your posts, and what isn't coming from ChatGPT seems to be mostly snarky, condescending, and belligerent. Or maybe that's ChatGPT too.
You have a steep hill to climb very quickly: convince me otherwise or I am going to suggest to the other mods that we just start banning with prejudice anyone who looks like "Har-de-har let's unleash ChatGPT on the Motte with a random hot take it can defend to the death."
Amadan, I asked for examples. Please provide them. Otherwise, you're operating on undisclosed, private definitions of "belligerent" and "condescending" and "snarky". Not fair.
More options
Context Copy link
Why do you think his post is AI generated? It doesn't have the hallmarks I'd normally look for, and I put his text through 3 ChatGPT detectors and they all came back with 0% match.
More options
Context Copy link
You might be surprised how well formed an idea can be if you work on it together with an AI. Feeding it data, having it search, etc. Obviously you can’t just copy paste but it’s an art form. >How I learned to love slop.
More options
Context Copy link
I tend to avoid people who make crap up and pretend it's got anything to do with the facts. Opine on your judgment of the quality or snarkiness of what I say, speculate all you like about its origins, it's got nothing to do with the ideas I presented. It's just another kind of rank-pulling diversion to avoid engaging with the ideas.
FYI, the ONLY things I use ChatGPT or any other AI to do are to fact-check, criticize and stress test my ideas, and perform gap analysis. No, I don't get my ideas from an AI. I got them from living, engaging with life and people, research, study, and experimentation. I included that screenshot because I was surprised to get agreement on the first pass. It usually takes multiple rounds of debunking its (all the other AIs') misreads, unwarranted inferences, just plain dumb illogic, etc., before we get down to the crux of it. I wasn't just surprised that it hit principled deprivation on the nose, but by how it presented it -- like an uh-duhr, everyone knows this.
I don't have to convince you of anything. I'll refrain from sharing anything AI-related since it seems to get your goat. I've been actively writing about these things since 2009. Care to check it out? I'll give you links if you're interested. Characterize my post and comments as "Har-de-har let's unleash ChatGPT on the Motte..." all you like. It's your figment, not mine, and it's wildly wide of the mark. Plus, it FAILS to engage with the thinking, whatever its origin.
Well, since you're new to the Motte, let me explain a few things to you.
I am not engaging with your ideas at all. I do not particularly care about your ideas. I'm a moderator here whose job is to keep the conversations civil and in accordance with our rules.
If you did not use an LLM, I apologize. The flood of LLM posts lately is probably making us a bit paranoid, and I will admit to scoring a false positive now and then.
That said, you're still being condescending and belligerent to a lot of people who are arguing with you. You need to stop that.
I'm not condescending to anyone, not intentionally at least. Nor belligerent. If someone talks like they know when they couldn't possibly know -- like making things up as they go along and presenting them as fact, aka bullshit, I'm frank about calling it out for what it is. Please give me a couple of specific examples that you consider to be such. I can't stop what I don't know I'm doing -- or meet expectations based on mistaken impressions of what I'm doing. I'm direct, explicit, and honest. Does that come across as condescending and belligerent to you?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think this guy might be for real.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link