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 -
Elon Musk just launched Grokipedia, a kanged version of wikipedia run through a hideous AI sloppification filter. Of course the usual suspects are complaining about political bias and bias about Elon and whatnot, but they totally miss whole point. The entire thing is absolute worthless slop. Now I know that Wikipedia is pozzed by Soros and whatever, but fighting it with worthless gibberish isn't it.
As a way to test it, I wanted to check something that could be easily verifiable with primary sources, without needing actual wikipedia or specialized knowledge, so I figured I could check out the article of a short story. I picked the story "2BR02B" (no endorsement of the story or its themes) because it's extremely short and available online. And just a quick glance at the grokipedia article shows that it hallucinated a massive, enormous dump into the plot summary. Literally every other sentence in there is entirely fabricated, or even totally the opposite of what was written in the story. Now I don't know the exact internal workings of the AI, but it claims to read the references for "fact checking" and it links to the full text of the entire story. Which means that the AI had access to the entire text of the story yet still went full schizo mode anyways.
I chose that article because it was easily verifiable, and I encourage everyone to take a look at the story text and compare it to the AI "summary" to see how bad it is. And I'm no expert but my guess is that most of the articles are similarly schizo crap. And undoubtedly Elon fanboys are going to post screenshots of this shit all over the internet to the detriment of everyone with a brain. No idea what Elon is hoping to accomplish with this but I'm going to call him a huge dum dum for releasing this nonsense.
This reminds me of Vox Day's Encyclopedia Galactica project, or the even more retarded Conservapedia.
Wikipedia and crowd-sourced intelligence in general has its obvious failure modes, yet Wikipedia remains an extremely valuable source for.... most things that aren't heavily politicized. Even the latter will usually have articles that are factually correct if also heavily factually curated.
The problem with AI-generated "slop" is not the "schizo" hallucinations that you see. It's the very reasonable and plausible hallucinations that you don't see. It's the "deceptive fluency" of an LLM that is usually right but, when it's wrong, will be confidently and convincingly wrong in a way that someone who doesn't know better can't obviously spot.
With Wikipedia, if I read an article on Abraham Lincoln, I am pretty confident the dates will be correct and the life and political events will be real and sourced. Sure, sometimes there are errors and there are occasional trolls and saboteurs (I once found an article on a species of water snake that said their chief diet was mermaids), and if you are a Confederate apologist you will probably be annoyed at the glazing, but you still won't find anything that would be contradicted by an actual biography.
Whereas with an AI-generated bio of Lincoln, I would expect that it's 90% real and accurate but randomly contaminated with mermaids.
So, yes, I'm sure most of us are aware that Wikipedia political articles are going to be as misleading as they can get away with, but let me just say that there are some completely non-political articles that are factually wrong, too. If you look up the Sleeping Beauty problem, the article states that there is "ongoing debate", which is ridiculous. For actual mathematicians, there's no debate; the answer is simple. The only reason there's a "debate" is because some people don't quite understand what probability measures. Imagine if the Flat Earth page said that there was "ongoing debate" on the validity of the theory...
And don't even get me started on the Doomsday argument, which is just as badly formed but has a bunch of advocates who are happy to maintain a 20-page article full of philosobabble to make it sound worthy of consideration.
I'm sure there are many other examples from fields where I'm not informed enough to smell the bullshit. Crowdsourcing knowledge has more failure modes than just the well-known political one.
Excellent bait.
Only partially - I genuinely think this is an example of a failure of Wikipedia as a repository of knowledge. And believe me, I'd like nothing more than for rationalists to grok Sleeping Beauty like they (mostly) grok Monty Hall.
Eh, I think that the issue is that probabilities are facts about our model of the world, not facts about the world itself, and we will use different models of the world depending on what we're going to use the probability for. If Sleeping Beauty is asked each time she awakens for a probability distribution over which side the coin landed on, and will be paid on Wednesday an amount of money proportional to the actual answer times the average probability she put on that answer across wakings, she should be a halfer to maximize payout. If instead she gets paid at the time she is asked, she should be a thirder.
But if you think there should be some actual fact of the matter about the "real" probability that exists out in the world instead of in your model of the world, you will be unsatisfied with that answer. Which is why this is such an excellent nerd snipe.
p.s. you might enjoy the technicolor sleeping beauty problem.
I appreciate that you're trying to steelman the halfer position, but that's a really artificial construction. In fact, in this framing, the payout is 1/2 regardless of what she answers (as long as she's consistent). That's what happens when you try to sidestep the obvious way to bet (where even the Wikipedia article admits she should wager 1/3 on heads - and then somehow fails to definitively end the article there).
Nice, I think I'd encountered it before (I've unfortunately read a lot of "Ape in the coat"'s voluminous but misguided Sleeping Beauty posts), but I didn't specifically remember that one. Commit to betting only if the room is red. Then of the four equal-weight possibilities (Monday is red/blue) x (heads/tails), you win in red/tails and blue/tails, you lose in red/heads, and you don't bet in blue/heads. Expected payout per experiment is 1/4*(200+200-300) = 25.
He does seem to be wrong about "for reference, in regular Sleeping Beauty problem utility neutral betting odds for once per experiment bet are 1:1", because if you have any source of randomness yourself, you can actually get better odds (by ensuring that you'll "take the bet" more often when you have two chances at it). I see you actually posted a really nice analysis of the problem yourself in the link. It's fun that there's a distinction between an external source of randomness (where the results on Monday/Tuesday are dependent) and an internal source (where the results on Monday/Tuesday must be independent).
It sure is. That's kind of the point, I left a comment in more depth elsewhere in the thread.
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
More options
Context Copy link