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 -
Debatable. It looks like he wrote or edited some of it himself, and like I told him, we don't really have a rule about how much of your post can be written with AI assistance. Also, since I've already talked to him about it, it seems kind of unfair to go back and delete the post now.
If he keeps doing this, the mods will discuss it and we will likely remove such posts in the future.
Just because smh rationalizes his AI usage with "well I wrote some of it myself" doesn't mean we need to take that excuse from just anyone -- this post is the very definition of AI slop; if you're going to let that slide there might as well be no rule at all. Enjoy your 10k word back-and-forth posts as people point their AIs at each other, I guess.
Monsieur's dissatisfied snapping of fingers is duly noted.
Tres drole -- what actually is the exact rule about AI posting? I forget, but I thought it was theoretically not allowed on grounds of low effort. (other than the "but I was just using it to help me edit" excuse/loophole, which is clearly not true with this guy -- have you been reading his replies?)
As I understand it, a totally AI-generated post is disallowed, but a post portions of which are AI-generated is allowed, and there is not yet an official position on how much of a post has to be AI-generated before it trips the alarm bells (but it's definitely >0% and plausibly >40%).
If this OP (and the bulk of OP's followup comments) are less than 40% AI, I'll eat my hat -- it's plausibly 100% autobot stuff, although "cut & paste with minor tweaks" would be my modal prediction.
In any case, if the rule is "more than x% AI content, but 'x' is measured by 'trust me bro', there might as well be no rule at all. Which is why 'zero, but if your LLM process is such that it's indistinguishable from zero, nobody is looking over your shoulder so whatever' is the only feasible decision matrix.
The problem being that the koolaid crowd seems unaware that obvious LLM output is obvious, and will probably get pissy -- c'est la vie, I say.
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