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 -
I've all of the sudden seen AI blackpilling break out into the normie space around me. Not so much about FOOM, and paperclipping, or terminator scenarios, but around the sudden disruptive nature, and especially around economic upheaval. Not exactly sure why. Veo3 has been part of it.
For example, coworkers suddenly aware that AI is going to completely disrupt the job market and economy, and very soon. People are organically discovering the @2rafa wonderment at how precariously and even past-due a great deal of industry and surrounding B2B services industries stand to be domino'd over. If my observation generalizes, that middle class normies are waking up a doompill on AI economic disruption, what is going to happen?
Let's consider it from 2 points of view. 1 They're right. and 2. They're wrong. 1. is pretty predictable fodder here - massive, gamechanging social and economic disruption, with difficult to predict state on the other side.
But is 2 that much less worrisome? Even if everyone is 'wrong', and AI is somehow not going to take away 'careers', people in mass worrrying that it's so will still manifest serious disruption. People are already starting to hold thier breath. Stopping hiring, stopping spending, running hail mary's, checking out.
Somehow, it's only senior management who doesn't realize the impact. (They keep framing 'If we can cut costs, we'll come out on top, instead of following the logical conclusion, if everyone stops spending the B2B economy collapses.) - I have a nontechnical coworker, who has recently recreated some complex business intelligence tool we purchased not long ago using readily available AI and a little bit of coaching. He had an oh shit moment, when he realized how cannibalized the software industry is about to get. The film industry seems about to completely topple, not because Veo3 will replace it immediately, but because, who's going to make a giant investment in that space right now?
I suspect the macro economic shock is going to hit faster than most are expecting, and faster than actual GDP gains will be made, but maybe I'm just an idiot.
The major theme of Mark Twain's Life on the Mississippi, outside of his obvious love and nostalgia for the mighty river of his boyhood, is the unending march of progress. He speaks of the raft-men (who he also immortalized in Huck Finn), who would lazily guide rafts loaded with upstream cargo down to the Gulf and spend their free time preaching their strength and tussling with one another with an Appalachian verve that reminds me of nothing more than WWE fights. They were beaten out by the steamboats. He talks of his experience as a pilot of one of these steamboats, a highly lucrative profession due to its technical complexity and fine art, carefully dodging the sandbars and "reefs" (usually - sunken trees) and adverse currents and following side-channels to cut out major parts of the voyage, not only at day but even at night, through nothing more than one's memory, with the constant risk of the bomb of a boiler sitting below-decks and threatening to detonate and kill most of those aboard, as happened in fact to Twain's brother - liveliness, risk, and the gaudy beauty of those old, painted boats, which Twain recalls pulling into his hometown's dock as a child, with the tempting offer of a life on the river and wealth beyond his imagination. The trains came down the river postbellum, and the passengers and freight moved over, for the most part, and little tugboats in the hire of the newly muscular federal government came along to pull all the stumps and dredge all the sandbars and haul long trains of barges for far cheaper than the steamboats ever could, leaving the pilot's job simpler and his steamboat derelict and unwanted.
Twain, of course, was a fervent Progressive - of the movement of the time, which meant recognition of what was changing, and what was changing so much for the better. And indeed, he describes these incredible shifts in the world of his time. The mosquito-ridden bogs of New Orleans were drained by a modern system of sewage and water control that left nowhere for them to breed. The agonizing, slow stage-coach journey he took out West was replaced by a train that made the trip in a fraction of the time and in total luxury. All of these things were changing over the 19th century. I remember feeling almost dizzied when reading Twain's Innocents Abroad, when he stops in his pleasure-trip in France in 1868 - the last time I had read about France, it was 1815 and Napoleon's troops were marching north for their doomed encounter with Blucher and Wellington, and their movement was compassed by Napoleon's compass, firmly set to the number of miles a pack-laden man could march in a day. But now the country was covered by a beautiful and perfect train network - why march to the Netherlands when you could go by train? Incredible, incredible. Or I remember how Chekhov (yes, that one), who was a doctor as well as a playwright, had expressed shock at some of the war-deaths in War and Peace, as he himself was (now, later), perfectly capable of curing the gangrene that was irreversibly fatal in 1812. (But I can't find that quote again at present, so treat the source as apocryphal - but not the medical fact.) The end of the 19th century was a different world from the start, completely and totally.
Hopefully you've enjoyed at least some of this meandering, but let me make my point clear. What gave the Progressive movement of the 19th century such muscle was the obvious, incontrovertible, and massive improvements to life of applying its methods generally. Everyone became richer, healthier, and in better control of their environment - especially in America, where the fruits of the movement rapidly percolated down to the common man. There were disruptions, and pretty major ones too. The steamboat industry was one of those sacrifices. But the great wealth of the time defanged the worst of the Luddism that could have arisen in response. Luddism is always on the back foot compared to the powerful evolutionary quality of progress, but it can make some temporary gains if there's enough general sympathy - and there just wasn't, and the reason why there wasn't is clear.
We've recently been sold a story that computing is the next Industrial Revolution. Certainly computing is now everywhere, absolutely everywhere. What was once an analog control mechanism became a custom-programmed digital interface; the custom-programmed digital interfaces have become small installations of Linux. Everything is "smart," which (to be honest) often doesn't live up to its own name, but the processing power is there. The ubiquitous internet has changed how we interact with just about any question of fact and knowledge. AI is, in a sense, just a continuation of that, another horizon of computing. Where before we would have people sitting and doing manual entry, now we have a prompt sent to an LLM to produce similar output. Everything that required a little human fuzziness and finesse to corral uncertain inputs into uncertain outputs now falls under the domain of the digital. So now we don't have to bother getting our fuzzy mindsets to cleanly interface with discrete digital systems, but instead can interface with those fuzzy AIs and get what we want without worrying about the specifics. That, I think, is what's roughly on the table here. Obviously jobs are at risk, just like the old manual computers were replaced by calculators, and how the required number of secretaries went down as computing technology went up, and how email replaces the need for a great many form-shufflers, but there are meaningful changes in how people can interface with the world - as a simple example, no more balancing a checkbook, just log onto your online banking portal and you can see exactly how money entered and exited your account (and a short hop to your credit card's website will give you the rest of the breakdown).
But people are, this time, generally unhappy in a way that goes beyond the disruptions of the past. The main division I've noticed in optimism here - beyond the AI fanatics, who I think are an unrepresentative subset of hobbyists invested in the technology for reasons other than pure practicality - is between ownership and everyone else. There was a post on here some few weeks back, where a small businessman was using AI and was pretty happy with what it was giving him. That's the small end of AI. On the large end, CEOs in big businesses are creaming their pants about AI to the shareholders under the impression that shareholders are very interested in AI, and less cynically, they might even believe that AI is an important improvement to their business model. (I have connections in the industry on both sides of the buying-AI and selling-AI divide, and at the moment neither one has a good idea of what LLMs will be useful for but definitely don't want to be left out - my paraphrase, but not my words on that one. So I'm a little more dubious than the CEOs are, here.) So if you stand to control the use and output of AI, you're all in favor. If not, then you're a lot more skeptical of whether it will benefit society. That's it. There are other questions about efficacy, which we don't need to get into, but assuming it will do something, the answer of whether or not it is good depends on whether you will get control over it.
And this is not a new question for computing. I'm sure the median reader here is aware of the "right to repair" movement arguing that non-licensed mechanics should be able to repair proprietary hardware, like cars and farm equipment. But the reason this movement had to start, the shift from the old mechanic status quo, was the introduction of computing to vehicles. EULA terms for the software on these vehicles, most famously from John Deere, would invalidate the license if anyone other than the manufacturer was involved in the repair. Computing, because of the tight copyright and licensing scheme for the distribution and reuse of software, has become a powerful tool for ownership in America and abroad. If you get a purely mechanical tool, it is possible - maybe not easy, but possible - to modify it to meet your needs, and certainly legal. With software, this is often illegal. Old software, because its source code is both under copyright and not published, disappears into the ether instead of being used as a meaningful basis for new software - the public domain of software is only those things which people have, for their own reasons, decided to publish generally. And more recently, in the age of cloud computing and the internet, the tools we use most commonly aren't under our own ownership and on our own servers, but on some large company's server - a company who can make unilateral decisions about our software, nominally responsive to the market but certainly not responsive to you. (I'm still personally salty over a Firefox UI change from fifteen-odd years ago.)
This is why the response to AI is so muted among your coworkers, in my opinion. It's obvious to the little guy that you don't control what's happening with software. The ownership is simply removed from you. There's no real alternative than to get what's coming to you. If someone retrains an LLM and makes it worse for you, then you'll just have to suck it up, won't you? If they replace your job, you're not getting any of the profits, are you? It's just more leverage for power and less for everyone else. And I don't think this is going to change, not as long as we regulate software under our current rules, with copyright and the EULA. Those rules are not a necessity of the technology, but they sure do create "natural" monopolies, as much as if we'd let Carnegie copyright molten steel and hold onto that copyright for 90 years. Until this changes, there is never going to be good news out of computing, because the only news will be that the bastards who rule your life get to twist your nuts a little tighter. AI is no exception.
Install Linux, btw.
Great post.
I've recently learned about Solow's Paradox, the idea that productivity growth in developed countries doesn't appear to be reflecting the impact of computers / the internet / the smartphones despite their obvious incredible impacts on society and it's been pretty fascinating to think about.
Consensus seems to be split between productivity statistics overestimating inflation and underestimating real growth and theories that computing really just hasn't significantly moved productivity for various reasons [personally I think this would explain a lot....]
Parkinson answered this one in 1955. Work expands to fill available time. If you come up with a way to do useful tasks in less time, the tasks will be made harder or more BS tasks will be added.
This didn't happen during industrialisation and electrification though. Yes, to some extent the nature of work expanded and changed, but productivity grew very obviously and rapidly in those eras in a way that we don't seem to be seeing with computerisation.
I think it did happen during industrialisation for white collar work, though. Previously, you had a clerk writing documents all day. Maybe he could do ten letters a day (figure pulled out of the air, not backed up by data). The Victorian postal system was incredible; in London you would have multiple daily deliveries of post (so it was possible to write a letter in the morning, post it, and have a reply by the evening).
This wasn't happening in a vacuum, things like the expansion of the railways meant faster travel and now it was possible to send and receive goods over longer distances.
Then the typewriter gets invented. Now your productivity in the office has skyrocketed (relatively). Now you can do ten letters in the morning! Naturally, no employer is going to pay workers to sit around for the rest of the day, or go home after half a day's work. Now that your output is more than ten letters per day, your employer wants you to do twenty letters per day, because now the business can grow to support that.
And typewriters were the thing that made startups (to use a comparison) possible. Now women could work. Now you could buy your own typewriter and set up as a secretarial service for small local businesses that maybe didn't or couldn't afford to employ a clerk, but did need documents written (or typed) up. The new job of "typist" was created:
Now costs came down and productivity soared. And gradually the role of "secretary" no longer meant "a job for a man, possibly a university graduate, who will deal with more than just correspondence" and became "a job for a woman who can type and take dictation but is a vocational training job".
By 1891, the time of publication of this Sherlock Holmes story, typewriters as the new office tech were commonplace enough that they could be used in crime:
Until typewriters, and secretaries, and typing pools, became the new normal and that reached the saturation point of "we are at thirty letters a day" which became the new standard of productivity. And then came word processors, and... rinse and repeat.
More options
Context Copy link
Probably an issue of diminishing returns. At some point between 1900 and 1955, the amount of useful work available fell below productivity * the amount of time available to do useful work. So instead of doing more useful work, we started refining the work we were doing. More safety procedures, more record-keeping, more documenting, more reports on all of the above -- all of that can be increased without bounds.
But that requires a set value for “useful work.” Previous societies found more useful work to do as more time became available. Time freed from labor on farms became time spent in factories, for instance. So your model demands an explanation of why useful work has suddenly plateaued, as a function of useful work, not of bureaucracy.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link