site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   31231 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 9, 2023

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.

14
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

So, this feels up the motte's alley- https://www.romecall.org/the-call/

I apologize for the Vatican's web design. TLDR important figures from the major Abrahamaic religions have signed a call for AI ethics which has also been signed onto by representatives from, among others, IBM, Microsoft, and the Italian government.

It's not 100% clear to me what any of this means, per se-

Now more than ever, we must guarantee an outlook in which AI is developed with a focus not on technology, but rather for the good of humanity and of the environment, of our common and shared home and of its human inhabitants, who are inextricably connected. In other words, a vision in which human beings and nature are at the heart of how digital innovation is developed, supported rather than gradually replaced by technologies that behave like rational actors but are in no way human. It is time to begin preparing for more technological future in which machines will have a more important role in the lives of human beings, but also a future in which it is clear that technological progress affirms the brilliance of the human race and remains dependent on its ethical integrity

and

in this context and at a national and international level, to promote “algor-ethics”, namely the ethical use of AI as defined by the following principles:

• Transparency: in principle, AI systems must be explainable;

• Inclusion: the needs of all human beings must be taken into consideration so that everyone can benefit and all individuals can be offered the best possible conditions to express themselves and develop;

• Responsibility: those who design and deploy the use of AI must proceed with responsibility and transparency;

• Impartiality: do not create or act according to bias, thus safeguarding fairness and human dignity;

• Reliability: AI systems must be able to work reliably;

• Security and privacy: AI systems must work securely and respect the privacy of users.

Are more like typical Francis-era Vatican boilerplate than anything concrete. But as a milestone it's probably the first time anyone even attempted to define AI ethics, isn't it? Anyways, I'd be interested in hearing from Motteizans who know a lot more about AI than I do(which, to be clear, is that it's hilarious to feed ChatbotGPT black nationalist conspiracy theories) about what this probably means.

I see this as an instance of a broader pattern: "All changes must be Pareto improvements". Demands for higher standards are fine, but the implicit "... or else there should be no AI at all" feels destructive.

I'm a bit more curious that these princples would not feel out of place coming from a generic California university or tech company. But the Vatican? Is this Pope Francis' modernizing reformist influence? I would have expected something like "we should ensure the benefits of AI make their way to the global poor" and "we as a community need to take care of anyone displaced by technology". In particular, the "Transparency", "Reliability", and "Security and privacy" points feel odd here.

Also, I am relieved to have made it out of university before "Algorethics" becomes a freshman compsci class requirement

I see this as an instance of a broader pattern: "All changes must be Pareto improvements".

No, the typical demands to not have "bias" (which usually means "disparate impact") tend to eliminate even pareto improvements.

Consider a lending algo which currently approves X% of blacks and Y% of whites. Now suppose AI comes along and approves (X+1)% of blacks and (Y+3)% of whites. That's a pareto improvement but it introduces "bias".

What this is a broader pattern of is "we want to make vague and incoherent demands so that we have an excuse to exercise power over you".

"we want to make vague and incoherent demands so that we have an excuse to exercise power over you".

That's what alignment looks like, no? I don't think AI researchers or AI itself should have power over AI.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats