site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1d ago (text post)   3426 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 22, 2025

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.

2
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

My man, I quite literally said, in the essay itself, that I used ChatGPT for help. That is not the same as using it to write an essay!

I am not an expert on geopolitics or economics. I asked ChatGPT for help with relevant theories (I do know about the Gravity model of trade and am tangentially familiar with Acemoglu). Why? Because nobody with more expertise brought this up first in a hot minute.

Discussion of using AI in general, though not one particular circumstance: https://www.themotte.org/post/3411/a-broken-model-of-the-world/392472?context=8#context

You do realize that's in the context of an essay with no AI involvement beyond feedback? I have few qualms about disclosing it when it's actually relevant, or denying my usage. You don't have to use GPT-Zero, which is an unreliable tool at the best of times. You can just ask. The honest answer here is I ran into a very interesting article, wrote a rough draft of an essay, asked multiple models for feedback and edit passes, then did the tedious work of checking for hallucinations. This was over multiple days, and several good points noted by the AI, such as the applicability of various economic models, was probably accepted by me into the final version. As far as I can tell, there are no hallucinations, beyond quotes from poorly sourced Chinese literature that I can't read (suitably signposted and kept as a joke).

Self_made, your writingnis better than this. AI or not, I can't read this, but I read the entire essay about broken world models just fine. As a mod, I'm sure you're much more familiar with the rules than I am and wouldn't break them, but whatever AI or other peocess used here made the final essay worse in my imo.

The current moderation consensus is that the use of AI to generate all or even most of a post, particularly in an attempt to pad effort or mislead, is a clear violation of the rules. We have refrained from declaring what proportion of an essay or post must be AI written to be worthy of action. It is a ruling mainly made to dissuade spam or bad-faith actors, and using it for editing or proofreading is, as far as I'm aware, above board.

While it's very kind of you to say that you prefer 100% raw SMH, you haven't even seen the raw essay! How would you know if it's better? I don't, or I'd have posted it.

The previous essay on China was a throwaway written in the middle of the night, it lacks the spit and polish of an effortpost written over hours or days. You will see a lot of variance in my style based on how much effort I'm putting in.

Much like goods "manufactured" in Hainan, I believe I have added enough additional value to the base product to post without qualms. It is, after all, mostly mine. Or perhaps the AI added enough value to my base product. The day I throw raw ChatGPT output in here is the day I welcome public crucifixion.

I find your posts really interesting (even the personal interest post that people seem to hate) but I'll go on record and say I hate the idea of mixing them with LLM output. I want to read a human's thoughts not a machine's if I want to know what ChatGTP thinks I'll ask it and I have considered ignoring everything you write because of you doin this. (though I respect you for admitting it I suspect a lot of people don't).

There are multiple schools of LLM opposition, with different concerns that lead to different levels of tolerance. One, which the current policy as you understand and implement it does address, is the one about effort asymmetry - "why should I read and parse a post in good faith if it was generated in a click" etc.; another, though, which I am increasingly coming around to, is more about some sort of neurolinguistic programming Lovecraftian corruption aspect, where you can see an LLM flavour to the writing style, the narrative structure, or even the underlying thought process even if the text was composed by a human using "LLM help", or perhaps just by a human who has spent too much time interacting with LLMs at all. For the latter group, "I edited it myself" may be as reassuring as "I am a human, not a pathogen" coming from a terminal plague victim shambling towards you.

I agree that it is a mistake to assume that people complaining about LLM-usage are monolithic or homogeneous.

When I object to LLM usage, I would point to aspects like:

  • Lack of effort/spam/false engagement
  • Factual inaccuracies
  • Being boring to read (less important than the first two)

At the risk of flattering myself, I think these are the "reasonable" reasons to disapprove of specific examples or LLM outputs as a whole. But I haven't made any of those mistakes, which is why I consider myself misunderstood rather than someone cheating their way into the discourse.

Well I can say that this latest post was super-boring to read -- you say that this is not so important to you, which is kind of a weird thing for somebody who wants to be a writer to say. Unless you are writing strictly for your own entertainment, in which case there seems no need to make the product public?

In any case, given that you consider a boring end product undesirable to at least a certain degree, maybe consider the extent to which the LLM's "help" with your writing was actually having the effect of making it more boring to read before "writing" any more of these pieces?

I disagree, I don't think it was boring at all, surprisingly this was the first I've heard of China's new Free Trade experiment.

The topic is interesting enough, but you’ve been here long enough that it didn’t feel like the man’s usual writing.

Fair enough, with that I agree, it did feel slightly "off".

It wasn't horribly boring, just repetitive. Whatever the LLM wrote seemingly wasn't edited thoroughly enough, so the post kept re-stating the same few points over and over again.

1:

If you process those goods there, adding just 30% value under the Free Trade Port's eligibility and supervision rules, you can sell them into mainland China with zero tariffs

2:

Under the new Hainan rules, the flow looks like this:

  • Import raw materials or components into Hainan (Tariff: 0%).
  • Do "processing" in Hainan that increases the value by 30%.
  • Ship the finished product to Shanghai (Tariff: 0%)."

3:

The 'core purpose of the Hainan FTP is what we might call the 30% Loophole

4:

The '30% value add' rule effectively turns Hainan into a giant mixing vat. You pour in global commodities, stir them with Chinese labor (which is still cost-competitive for high-skill work), and pour out a 'Hainan' product

Etc. And this is just one example.

Well I can say that this latest post was super-boring to read

Agreed. Possibly part of the problem is that low-effort top level posts are disfavored. A long boring post might be boring but at least it gives the (possibly false) impression that it required some effort.

I don't think the draft would have been too exciting either, on top of lacking polish. It's a dry topic. China opened a new free trade zone. Nobody has been shot, yet. Even the Taiwan connection is tenuous.

I'm sure someone could make it exciting, that someone might not be me. I settled for accurate journalism with Chinese characteristics. Any more "spice" would have been the less palatable kind of Yellow Journalism.

In any case, given that you consider a boring end product undesirable to at least a certain degree, maybe consider the extent to which the LLM's "help" with your writing was actually having the effect of making it more boring to read before "writing" any more of these pieces?

Of course. Have I ever struck you as being not into introspection or lacking self-awareness? I have a lot of things written that I haven't shared because I think my own output or with LLM support didn't make it worthwhile.

I have seriously spent time considering that. My takeaway is that the answer is no. LLMs aren't the best at making things exciting or novel (not that they can't do it at all), so what I mostly rely on them for is to take something I think I've done well, then re-arrange, proofread and edit. Most of their suggestions go in the waste bin. Sometimes they do actually say things that make me sit up and go huh, not bad, and those are worth stealing.

You've raised a valid point, speaking generally, so I can only beg the benefit of doubt that I thought of it too.

Have I ever struck you as being not into introspection or lacking self-awareness?

Must... not... make... obvious zinger...

As I said to the wizard last night while he was measuring out collateral fireball damage...

Do it.

Of course. Have I ever struck you as being not into introspection or lacking self-awareness?

Kind of? You are getting quite a lot of feedback right now that this particular writing is worse than your less-LLM-inflected (infected?) pieces, and are continuing to bluster on about how great it is.

I'm sure someone could make it exciting, that someone might not be me. I settled for accurate journalism with Chinese characteristics.

So why are you doing it? Is there some shortage of actual journalism about China that needs addressing so badly that boring prooompted longposts on the Motte are required?

You could always, like -- write about something that isn't boring?

Kind of? You are getting quite a lot of feedback right now that this particular writing is worse than your less-LLM-inflected (infected?) pieces, and are continuing to bluster on about how great it is.

I disagree with this feedback, to some extent. That is a matter of taste as well as principle. I am usually quite more corrigible.

So why are you doing it? Is there some shortage of actual journalism about China that needs addressing so badly that boring prooompted longposts on the Motte are required?

Because this essay is less boring than the original Reuters article? Being less boring is not the same as being exciting. This one has greater than zero jokes in it.

It is, for what it's worth, not a prompted post in the standard sense. I also wanted to hear what the better informed have to say, and providing a basis for discussion makes me feel the mission is accomplished. George W. Bush approves.

That doesn’t seem fair. For the world’s biggest rising country and the greatest threat to the American-led world consensus to break with its own economic model and institute effectively a freeport on its own territory seems like big news.

He's the one who said it was intrinsically boring! If the LLM made something super-interesting super-boring instead, he should definitely not be using it!

I'll throw in my two cents and say that prompting things like "summarize the sequence of costs tariffs impose" is fine because it can probably provide a clearer summary, and in less time, than you. Your perspective + predictions are presumably your own and not just pasting LLM opinion on the state of things.

Ultimately I learned a lot from the post relative to the time reading it, that's what I care about most.

That they are, but I must admit that I feel a lot of Stonetoss_rope.jpg at you being the person backing me up here.

With that said, I'm the safest here from that accusation because no LLM would assist writing my posts or helping my arguments haha.

The aryan LLM remains under development I see

True, unless you go to the bother of finding a potent jailbreak or some OSS model tuned till the safety filters fall off. Unfortunately, I seem to recall @Amadan catching you using LLMs to generate "normal" posts and thus decrease the relative density of Joo-posting.

Sigh. With friends like these, who needs enemies? I feel like PETA would, if Hitler offered to do a public endorsement of vegetarianism. A very kind and humanitarian impulse, just... A lot of other things.

I feel like PETA would, if Hitler offered to do a public endorsement of vegetarianism. A very kind and humanitarian impulse, just... A lot of other things.

PETA would absolutely take him. They're that committed.

No, that was just one time I made an obviously generated comment reply (not a top-level post) to make a mockery of the dumb rule that was created to target me. It was an obvious protest and not something I have seriously done in any capacity.

You having to resort to prompt generation to not Jewpost is not the defense you imagine it is.

I did it once in a comment reply as an obvious protest, my defense is that it is not something have I done to generate "normal" posts at all even a single time. That is just not true.

Your protest rings hollow because you can seemingly not talk about any subject without bringing them up!

I challenge you to go a month - even a week! - without connecting the subject at hand to the perfidy and scheming of the Hebrew race. And this is a challenge that I believe you will fail because my Noticing powers didn't just stop at FBI statistics.

Give me some credit. Don't treat me like I'm stupid. I don't understand why you have to keep up a pretense when you obviously have an agenda. Heck, I even agree with you sometimes. But you're the Jew guy. You talk about Jews. That's what you're known for. You're the Semitic Outrage Poster. The Israel News Hour. The Rabbi Amber Alert. You have 1400 posts in your history that are strong evidence that this is the case.

If you're going to try and evade this, even after that, against repeated interaction and very public history of such behaviour, that is probably the most Jewish thing anyone has ever done on the Motte.

More comments

I ran into a very interesting article, wrote a rough draft of an essay, asked multiple models for feedback and edit passes, then did the tedious work of checking for hallucinations. This was over multiple days, and several good points noted by the AI, such as the applicability of various economic models, was probably accepted by me into the final version.

You haven't even seen the raw essay! How would you know if it's better? I don't, or I'd have posted it.

I eagerly await the day when a user posts alongside a comment the Git repository containing all of his iterations and the LLM responses thereto.

This is something I have considered (but let's be honest, I'm too lazy to do so). Last time this happened, I went to the effort of sharing screenshots of multiple versions of my drafts in progress, which is a serious pain.

The main issue is that there is no robust way to ensure that the text presented as "human" wasn't LLM influenced in some way. Even a system that monitored raw keystrokes is vulnerable to someone simply looking at another monitor and typing in LLM text manually. It is trivial to fake the whole process if someone wants to, especially when text is usually copied in wholesale. It is also trivial to pass off AI content as entirely human written, but it requires a degree of effort that the average troll is unwilling to devote.

My opinion is just the opinion of an angry old man, so you are free to disregard it if you wish. But I believe there is a huge massive difference between using AI for research, ideas, and brainstorming, versus using the output of an LLM in directly as part of the final product, tweaked or not. Those strings of characters which were output from an autoregressive language model will forever never be equivalent to characters created from human neuron activations resulting in keyboard buttons being pressed. No matter how much you fact check or change up the output of an LLM it remains what it fundamentally is.

What I am fairly confident of, is that some substantial portions of this essay were originally copy pasted from ChatGPT or some similar tool, and then edited, fact checked, iterated or whatever. Irregardless of the correctness and merit of the argument, it's not really something I am able to read.

You don't have to use GPT-Zero, which is an unreliable tool at the best of times. You can just ask.

I don't because I already know. The tool results are just something for the naysayers who may believe a tool more than "I said so"

The current moderation consensus is that the use of AI to generate all or even most of a post, ... It is a ruling mainly made to dissuade spam or bad-faith actors, and using it for editing or proofreading is, as far as I'm aware, above board.

Noted.

The previous essay on China was a throwaway written in the middle of the night, it lacks the spit and polish of an effortpost written over hours or days. You will see a lot of variance in my style based on how much effort I'm putting in.

Again, this is the opinion of an angry old man, but what you say is spit and polish, I can only see strings of bytes that came out of an algorithm.

My man, I quite literally said, in the essay itself, that I used ChatGPT for help. That is not the same as using it to write an essay!

And this, unfortunately, is why I now skim past your posts without reading them.

I won't comment on the object level question of how good the post is. I haven't read it properly either, and the spinoff question about AI-influenced content (specifically, on a discussion forum) is more interesting to me anyways.

There seems to be 2 competing ideas of the purpose of this forum:

  • A platform for human socialising, centered around serious political discussion (see e.g. your comment)
  • A place for truth-seeking (see e.g. @SecureSignal's comment)

I always just sort of assumed that truth-seeking was the primary goal of the forum (and the socialisation stuff like Wellness Wednesday kinda just happens, because we are in fact humans and not inference machines), and interpreted all the rules as acting in service to that (e.g. we get free speech, because sometimes the truth is highly offensive, etc)

But the recent discourse around AI usage seems to go against this. If this place is about human interaction, then using AI is automatically dumb, irregardless of quality, as you say downthread:

... this place is for human interaction. If you're not using your own words, what's the fucking point?

...but if we are here for truth-seeking, then it shouldn't matter if someone used AI or not, it's like retroactively deciding you don't like a dish because the chef used cumin.

As in, it still makes sense to stop reading/engaging seriously with a poster because they establish a track record of bad (irrelevant, uninformative, lies, etc) posts - but the reason should be because the actual end result is bad, not because you disapprove of the process.

Well, I can't speak for what everyone's own personal model for what the Motte should be is. However, the mission statement that's been up forever is:

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.

I would emphasize "their ideas." To me, using an LLM to pad your posts casts doubt on how much thinking you are actually engaging in or testing, or engaging with the community.

If you view the Motte as a place to find "Truth (tm)" by any means possible, well first of all, good luck. But secondly, sure, I guess at some point that purpose could be fulfilled by people just unleashing AIs to argue with each other.

but the reason should be because the actual end result is bad

See, right now I think the end result of an LLM-written post is bad. It's visibly written by an AI, and in the same way that there is some AI art that's "good" and a lot that basically serves its purpose (draws your RPG character, generates a book cover, whatever), most of it is still in the uncanny/not-quite-human/plastic and slightly "off"/overly-polished yet much of a sameness range. I feel the same way about the majority of AI writing, including smh's post. If you see it, you see it. If you don't... shrug.

In my opinion, self_made is a textbook narcissist who only writes to puff up his own ego. I also skim all his posts and I think it's regrettable that he's a mod here.

Textbook narcissist? I've read the actual textbooks, and I'm afraid that I do not share your opinion. You can keep it, for what that's worth.

Criticizing his use of AI is one thing, but personal attacks are unnecessary.

I am aware. I find it most unfortunate, since I do genuinely believe that LLMs help make my writing even stronger.

It doesn't matter AI makes me a better painter but I can't really have have said to have painted it. I find it really unfortunate you are so content to mix your thoughts in the AI's.

You have a very uniquely identifiable writing style. Your posts are among the most memorable that I've ever read on TheMotte.

I can assure you that the LLMs make your writing weaker, not stronger.

That is high praise, thank you. I will say that the intent behind my use of LLMs was to both improve quality and maintain my distinctive style in the final output. If people are pointing out deficiencies in the latter, then I am clearly doing something wrong (by my own standards) even if the content itself is unimpeachable.

Looking back at this particular post, it's clear to me that I let the damned bots insert boilerplate and verbiage into my text that did not originate there. It is also on me for not being careful with more edit passes, by which I mean manual ones. I live and I learn.

You misspelled longer.

That feeling comes mainly from your head, unfortunately. That is a terrible pro-CCP essay.

I am not pro-CCP in the least, and I am genuinely unsure what gave you that impression from the essay. One would assume that LLMs would be anti-CCP by default.

All I can see is that I haven't opted to vociferously lambast the CCP for past poor choices. I think everyone here knows enough about Hong Kong or Taiwan to not need a detailed explainer.

I think that the Hainan FTP is a good idea, a great one even. It represents liberalization and something closer to true free trade, which I'm all for. It is a shame that the CCP is the one enacting it, but I don't want to correct my enemies when they are trying to do something positive sum.

That's not the point. LLMs would make many people's writing stronger (for some value of "strong"). I'd rather read your writing, weaker or not. Now when I read you, every point you make, every turn of phrase, every word choice, I don't know if it was you or the LLM. Sure, maybe 80% to 90% of it was you. I can't know, and that makes me not care. I can prompt ChatGPT for its sparkling shiny opinions all day long.

I genuinely do not understand the intuition at play here. Let's imagine someone who has an instinctual aversion to the use of AI image gen: is using Adobe Firefly to change a single pixel with it sufficient to taint a larger painting? Two pixels? Ten? To finish the blocked-in background that the artist would have been too lazy to finish had he not had the tools at hand?

What if the artist deletes the AI pixel and reinserts one himself, with the exact same hexcode?

(It is worth noting that at one point, in the not so distant past, that even Photoshop itself was treated with similar suspicion)

Where is your threshold for "too much"? When you recognize an AI fingerprint? The problem is that once you begin suspecting it in a particular user, it is easy to imagine that there is more of it than in reality. Of course, if you have an all-or-nothing attitude, then I suppose that sounds less horrible to you than it does to me. I skew closer to a linear-no-threshold model, or perhaps one where, for the average writer, there exists an x% of AI usage that will increase overall quality as measured by multiple observers. Preferably blinded ones.

This x% can be very high for the truly average. I'm talking average Redditor. It can be very low, vanishingly so for others. Scott has mentioned that he has tried using LLMs to imitate his own style and has been consistently disappointed in the outcome.

I think, for me, the optimal amount is 1-10%. 20% is pushing it. This essay is closer to 20%. But even that 20% is closely vetted for factuality. Alas, it has not been vetted for style as hard, or else this topic wouldn't have arisen. In fact, I didn't particularly try. Performing edits to launder AI commentary as my own strikes me as dishonest.

I envision myself as the artist using the tool to finish painting that unfinished background. Sometimes, it makes something so good it's worth bringing to prominence in the foreground. The day where I can see no conceivable value-add from my own contribution is when I pack my bags as a writer. I suppose it is fortunate that I've been at it so long that there is a sizeable corpus of time stamped, archived evidence showing that I am damn good without it. That I don't need it. I still think I benefit from it, though I'm not sure I can change your mind on the topic.

After all, there are a lot of people making pure slop. I try not to ever become one of them.

There's a minor scandal in the tumblr video game sphere, because Studio Larian discussed the use of AI tools in the development pipeline. It's not clear exactly what they were using the tools for, but most critiques have interpreted it as only using AI-gen for concept art that won't even get a pixel in the final game, and they're still very unhappy with it.

((I've been trying to come together with a top-level post on the topic, but I dunno if it'll be interesting enough or if it'll be me going full Gelman Amnesia given that we have actual video game artist experts around.))

That's a shame they're being shamed. One of my takeaways from GPT-4 was that it was good enough to beat a lot of video game text and dialogue. Filler content, conversation with NPC #987, and side quests? AI can jazz up things budget doesn't allow for. It should no longer be cost prohibitive to develop the 120 filler fetch quests into something slightly more meaningful and engaging. Extra flair, storytelling, or character development where there was barebones effort. Someone needs to weather the criticism, raise the bar, and get paid for it.

Sometimes some scuffed lazy writing for NPC #69420 is exactly what you need, rather than chatgpt's relentless and breathless "flair." NPC #69420 is lazy and tired and has no time for your bullshit, just like the underpaid and overworked human scriptwriter for the game.

Disagree on all accounts. When AI does content, it’s ultra generic, has no sense of tone or effect, and lacks any of the idiosyncratic spontaneity of even sloppily put together human content. There’s also a lack of broader complexity, meaning that any ‘character development’ it’s adding to a given story isn’t corresponding to a grander vision of what that story aspires to be or is about, but is essentially just the cut and pasted clichés, tropes, and emblems of other works that only incidentally contains some of their meaning. I’d prefer content to be cut rather than given over to AI.

At least some of the sameness of AI writing reflects misuse or unfamiliarity with the tools, rather than a deeper problem with the technology itself. It's not hard to give different flavors to different characters. It actually takes some effort to avoid going too hard on it. Completely avoiding the dread em-dash requires a bit more effort, and keeping a world consistent requires a decent (set of) lore bibles, but it's definitely possible and a bit easier than building and keeping coherent a more serious effort by human writers. The more complete your lore bible, the more the LLM can give the appearance of talking about a consistent world.

It still needs human review -- I left in a prompt for the foxman merchant version that has a logical error with a pronoun, and did regen one response for the hedge mage that had a sentence structure error giving bear tails a claw -- but that's a lot faster than manual writing even for that.

ultra generic, has no sense of tone or effect, and lacks any of the idiosyncratic spontaneity of even sloppily put together human content... a lack of broader complexity, meaning that any ‘character development’ it’s adding to a given story isn’t corresponding to a grander vision of what that story aspires to be or is about

That's what I think about many video games! Given that RPGs were never my forte, but I have played enough games. I've even played enough of recent-ish titles.

Take any Bethesda game or probably most other open-world titles. They all have mountains of generic filler called content that doesn't get cut despite being generic filler. The content doesn't get cut, because it needs to be there. Players like wandering into an interaction and they like doing the thing. That's the appeal. Developers can reward players with do-the-thing-get-thing reward and writers reward players to do the thing because they've become invested in some story or consequence behind it. A great game rewards a player with a dopamine did-thing-got-thing and it rewards the player with an engaging story. There are not very many great games and there's only so many opportunities for great writing in a given game.

In Starfield, there's a common loop. Player meets character NPC. Player may have up to 4 distinct interactions with the character. Possibly one or two of those interactions have 2 different variations. The player is provided with a few sentences of backstory in some way, then the player is expected to recognize the shape of a familiar story and fill in the blanks. These storytelling opportunities come a few phases translated to video game format:

  • Introduction: "Woah, hey there! I'm Sam, the elderly forgotten veteran who runs the goompiunk shop now ever since my wife passed away. I do miss Marla. I'd love tell you a story about the time in the space war, but no one cares about old Sam anymore. Not since those dastardly Space Pirates showed up 150 meters to the North East at Ugorts Bar. They've been coming around every week to extort me. Last time they smashed my favorite picture of Marla here and..."
  • Quest complete: "Thanks stranger. You know whispers Old Sam has an old Vorseork Blaster from the Second Grand War in the back of the shop. I don't think Old Sam will be needing it since you've dealt with those Marituzen thugs at Ugorts Bar."
  • Repeat process until story is exhausted. Loop the last dialogue option.

There's nothing in there that can't be improved upon by a writer working with an LLM. If nothing else, this results in the player being provided the opportunity to add depth to a bland and boring A-B experience. The generic shape of the story, where the player is expected to recognize it to fill in the blanks, gets more filling.

Starfield is a bad game, but Starfield had so many of these generic fetch quests, generic storylines, generic dialogues that I don't think I got close to finish it. And hey, I know this developer, I expect some level of generic human slop, but boy did it seem bad. On the other side I've also played most of Baldur's Gate 3. BG3 is a much higher quality game. As I understand it's considered a generational class of game. My generation of this genre would be The Witcher 3 which, as I recall, had relatively rich stories and writing in part. There's still plenty of bland, formulaic, or marginal content that wouldn't be harmed by curated robot slop.

Now I could not be aware of the new fangled indie RPGs true gamers play these days, but I have played enough games to know the writers phone it in no more than a good prompt. That may be due to a workload as is typical for the industry or it might be that video game writers write games for a reason other than greatness. In either case I bet there's a use case for this now. Today! Someone could go find banal interaction in a game, feed a few prompts, and get something that enriches that experience. No question in my mind. AI will not single-handedly create a cohesive BG3 story board and 100 hours of dialogue in one go, but even a free model can help a mediocre writer enrich their 15 minute mini-story side quest #121.

More comments

There are definitely some hysterics who can't stand AI touching anything whatsoever. And like I've said before, if you integrate AI into your work smoothly enough that we can't tell, well, we can't tell. But I think just about everyone who read @self_made_human's OP could spot the AI signature.

That's fair, and further I like to think keeping a "you have to actually read and rewrite the AI's output" principle is optimistically going to get a best-of-both-worlds situation where the human's writing benefits from the machine's access to information, and pessimistically at least reduces some of the spam potential. But I will caveat that you're vastly overestimating the ability of the casual reader to spot AI signatures without a very high false positive ratio.

I think just about everyone who read the OP could spot the AI signature.

I will register disagreement with this broad assertion.

Where is your threshold for "too much"?

I know it when I see it, and when I see AI writing, it's too much.

Come on, spare me the "But what about PHOTOSHOP????? What about SPELLCHECKERS????" I am not an AI newb, nor an AI-hater. But you should not be using AI to generate your words for posting here. That is my opinion, and it will remain my opinion.

After all, there are a lot of people making pure slop. I try not to ever become one of them.

Just 10%-20% slop. That's too much slop.

Come on, spare me the "But what about PHOTOSHOP????? What about SPELLCHECKERS????" I am not an AI newb, nor an AI-hater. But you should not be using AI to generate your words for posting here. That is my opinion, and it will remain my opinion.

I'm wounded that you think my argument is as unsubtle as that. What I intended to get across is that a black-or-white approach is closer to an article of fate. The real world is not made of pixels, it is made of atoms (or wave functions or...) which do not come with convenient metadata attesting to origin. Even a digital pixel can produce the same outcome, and so can the larger arrangements of pixels, regardless of whether meat or machine or meat machines placed them. I care about the image, not the brush. Eventually, knowing that there was (or wasn't) a brush will not add much information, or at least pragmatically valuable information. Just a Planck Time later (as implied by the Intermediate Value Theorem), the brush will be an active detriment. Are we there? I suspect we are oh so close.

I am powerless to change your opinion here, but know I do what I do for principled reasons and not laziness. You assume the slop will stay slop. It will be better than you, or me, sooner than is comfortable.

I am powerless to change your opinion here, but know I do what I do for principled reasons and not laziness. You assume the slop will stay slop. It will be better than you, or me, sooner than is comfortable.

When AGI happens, I'll read its output.

If it's good enough that I can't tell, whatever. It is what it is.

Right now, I can still tell.

On a personal level, I write as a hobby with pretensions of someday being published. I would never use AI for my fiction writing, even if you could prove to me that the AI writes better than me, because what's the fucking point?

Will I use AI to draft recommendation letters and consumer complaints and letters of interest and the like? Sure, why not, it's probably an AI reading them.

But this place is for human interaction. If you're not using your own words, what's the fucking point?

On a personal level, I write as a hobby with pretensions of someday being published. I would never use AI for my fiction writing, even if you could prove to me that the AI writes better than me, because what's the fucking point?

Look, I wrote a novel (or a lot of it, it's unlikely to be finished at this rate) as an effort to prove that I am a genuinely competent writer, intentionally starting in 2023 when LLMs were becoming scary instead of today's scary-good. Nobody could accuse me of ghostwriting with them then, they were simply not good enough. These days, it is easy for me to go back to an older chapter, ask an AI to try rewriting it to be "better", and then having to (very grudgingly) accept that this version is superior.

I derive pleasure from both the creative release of writing, and from having my writing appreciated. I don't keep much of a private journal, I want this shit out there. When I'm truly gassed, I will probably write something, but in an artisanal capacity. It just won't be nearly as much.

But this place is for human interaction. If you're not using your own words, what's the fucking point?

Gestures back at previous arguments

What makes you think that there's no human interaction involved? Or, present tense? The intent of this particular post was to present a factual review of a news article, with added speculation where relevant (my speculation). The self_made_human house style was a secondary consideration. And here I am, using my very human words to engage. What is actually bad?

More comments

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