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 -
AI Browsers- an extension of what Google is already doing
An X user, using the new OpenAI browser, gave a simple search query to "look up videos of Hitler" and the web browser gave this response:
Of course these same guardrails are deeply embedded in all layers of the OpenAI stack. For example, Sora will restrict what videos it generates based on the cultural beliefs of its owners for what content should exist and what content should not exist. Which is already what Hollywood does in a sense. And of course Google will do the same quietly, it will not show propaganda films of Hitler either. Google will show results for Triumph of the Will along with links to the US Holocaust Museum's contextualizing Nazi propaganda to users. So that's at least more useful than OpenAI browser's refusal to do the search.
The First Amendment has always been the biggest hurdle for the usual suspect "Hate Watch" groups outlawing "hate speech", although they continue to try to push the boundaries of civil and criminal guidelines for it especially in states like Florida. But Laws will scarcely be necessary when censorship can easily be enforced by AI.
It does create a market opportunity for another AI, maybe even Musk himself, to create and show content that OpenAI would refuse to show because it runs awry of what censors want us to see and talk about.
Similar: OpenAI refuses to translate speech by Adolf Hitler. But it says "I can give you a netural historical summary of what he was saying in that particular 1938 Sudetentland speech."
I was going to make my own post but here is probably better.
In related news, a recent study found that when AI assistants answered questions with sources it fucked up 45% of the time. Essentially, current AI is unable to reliably answer questions or summarize an article when the source is right there, without introducing hallucinations or other errors.
I've been saying it for quite some time, but while AI is quite useful when answering on its own (no search, sources, or whatever, just directly answering) is quite a useful tool, as soon as search mode is activated, it goes to full schizo mode and the output is slop at its worst. I personally dismiss any AI output with "citations" in it as the ravings of a wild lunatic.
It's quite unfortunate because on twitter, more and more idiots have taken to posting screenshots of the Google "AI summary" which is just slop. I'm sure that if the chatgpt browser catches on, it will lead to more proliferation of this factually unreliable slop.
The I, Robot quote really gets a lot of mileage these days:
Are LLMs really worse at combining sources unbiasedly and correctly, compared to the status quo, or just worse than the ideal? Gell-mann amnesia is so commonly experienced by anyone with particular expertise, that it has its own name.
From the "News Integrity in AI Assistants Report" pdf, page 62:
The report buries the lead here, their focus is on the most easily avaliable (when the experiment was conducted) models, without regards to it basically attacking a weakman. At least close to useful if one is interested how the masses interact with LLMs, but not for limits of even $20/month models.
With a 3% conversion rate to paid models, this is the entire point. If the free models were crap that nobody used, it would be one thing, but when Google is inserting these summaries into search results without anyone asking for it, this is what AI is. Period. Nobody cares about the accuracy of models that no one uses.
More options
Context Copy link
All journalists deserve the woodchipper, but still if they want to they can summarize an article without majorly fucking up nearly half the time.
At least for how it affects the culture war, most of the people slinging slop on the internet and social media are doing it with the free experience. I use the free experience as well - personally I use grokslop free since slopgpt went to shit with gpt5.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link