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 -
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:
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:
...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:
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.
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.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link