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 -
Love the thought-provoking take, even if it isn't something I fully agree on. I see some similarities between them.
Both Wokeism and the Neo-EA (AGI-fearmongers) movement run against one of the fundamental observed truths of the universe : "Predicting/Shaping the far-future is a futile exercise". I'd add a corollary to that : "Greedy optimization is the only form of optimization that works". Or in 1 word : "Humility".
Greedy optimization through small short term actions and observable outcomes is depressingly slow. But, it forces you to reconcile with the difference in expectations and actual outcomes. The difference is captured by a lack of understanding of the very underlying systems that these solutions aim to fix.
This is where both Wokeism and Neo-EA run into issues. Wokeism's "All of society needs to buy in into unresearched social change in lock step" demands change that requires generations to observe positive outcomes for, while negative side-effects are disregarded through "real wokeism wouldn't have these issues" or "a few negatives today will far outweigh the benefits that are to come in the promised future" kind of comments.
Neo-EA similarly demands that an entire industry should dedicate its efforts to AI-safety without any non-rhetorical research that proves the arrival of AGI, which they insist is definitely around the corner. They insist that a definite event is around the horizon by extrapolating from the present, a practice that has time-and-again failed at predicting the future. (Planes will keep getting smaller until flying cars are here, CPUs will grow at 2x/yr, Democracy is inevitable, and more things that never happened)
Both are impossible to criticize, in that same way that a startup that doesn't exist is impossible to criticize. Your analogies to religions and pseudo religions (Communism) are spot on. "Everything will make sense during the inevitable judgement day / when we have achieved true communism / when we have achieved equity / when AGI is finally here.". They are all the same thing.
For a movement so rooted in math, you'd think that they would have the humility to not look for a closed-form-solution to what is likely a non-convex problem. Small steps, gradient descent and slow progress is the only thing that sort-of-works.
There is certain irony to me suggesting that the only solution that has ever worked well for human systems is the exact algorithm being used to train massive AI models. So maybe the AGI-fearmongers have a point after all /s? .
What would you accept as non-rhetorical research proving the arrival of AGI that isn't just the arrival of AGI?
A meaningful shared definition of AGI would help.
The nature of seminal moments and paradigm shifts is that there are clear 'before' and 'after' periods that are indisputable. However, these are only indisputable in retrospect, as before hand people project their own biases/fancies on what a paradigm will be, which rarely relates to what it is. In retrospect, people will probably treat AGI-ers like we look back to the sort of cold war sci-fi that thought the future would be hover cars and atomic power everywhere. Yes, the atomic age was paradigm shift, but neither due to its apocalyptic prophets or its utopians.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link