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 -
How about a different kind of AI culture war? I speak of course of non-consensual pornography generation. The most outrageous article I read about this recently was probably this AP article: Boys at her school shared AI-generated, nude images of her. After a fight, she was the one expelled. The girl in question is 13 and she started a fight on a school bus with one of the boys later charged with a crime for sharing the images.
It turns out that finding apps that advertise this kind of functionality is not hard. In fact, part of the reason I bring this up is it seems this capability is integrated into one of the largest AIs: Grok. There's been some controversy on X over the last couple days after Grok allegedly generated pornographic images of a couple minor girls. Additionally the bot's "media" tab was disabled, allegedly due to the discovery lots of people were using the bot to make pornographic edits of other people's pictures. Though the media tab is gone I did not find it very hard to get Grok to link me its own posts with these kinds of edits.
There is, I think understandably, a lot of controversy going around about this. It's not that it was previously impossible to make this kind of content but the fidelity and availability was much more limited and certainly required more technical skill. Being something you can do without even leaving your favorite social media app seems like something of a game changer.
Frankly I am unsure where to go with this as a policy matter. Should someone be liable for this? Criminal or civil? Who? Just the generating user? The tool that does the generating? As a general matter I have some intuitions about AI conduct being tortious but difficulty locating who should be liable.
Well duh? The article itself says they didn't have any hard evidence, is she expecting the school to take action against this boy because it's who she and her friends "suspect" created the images without any hard evidence?
It's disgusting and awful behavior by whoever made them, but unless you've got some real evidence (and I'd even take one of the friends of the accused boy saying that the boy did it as stronger evidence than what the article presents) then I don't see what you could expect the school to do here. And even though it's nasty and disgusting behavior, starting a physical fight over it is going to get the person fighting in trouble until schools get rid of their retarded zero tolerance policies. I spent plenty of time in detention for fighting back, it's retarded policy but at least schools still seem to be consistent in their retardation.
Based on other things I've seen elsewhere, probably.
The First Amendment protects free speech from infringement by the Federal Government, the Fifth guarantees due process in the courts, and so on. The principal is not a Fed and their office is not a court, so obviously the constitution does not apply. Do one little rhetorical slip, and suddenly the entire idea of due process is not a valid counterargument to your preferred methods of meting out punishments (anywhere short of a genuine Court of Law, at least).
This is so remarkably and verifiably wrong. The principal of a public school is a State employee. The bill of rights is incorporated against the states by the 14A. The courts have for decades said that students don't categorically lose those rights in school. This is all stuff you can just look up.
Yup. Doesn't stop people from making that argument, either explicitly or by omission.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
“Your tears say more than real evidence ever could.”
More seriously, to me, the part that struck the most discordant note was this:
Which almost makes it sound like she wanted to keep going to school with the boy. If I were in the school district’s position, the last thing I’d do is ship them both off to the same location.
More options
Context Copy link
The impression I get from the rest of the article is not just the boy avoided school discipline immediately but even after having been charged with a crime for his actions. Maybe that's wrong, the boy goes unidentified and the school claims it also can't provide any information. Surely if there's enough evidence for the police to charge a crime there's enough evidence for a school to act.
It should be noted that police are much, much better at acquiring evidence than schools, and it's likely they didn't hand all their evidence over to the school.
More options
Context Copy link
The article says they charged two of the boys that were sharing the images, it's not clear to me at all that either of those two boys were the one who had originally created the images.
Edit: the article also seems to be saying that the two boys who were actually charged went to a different school than the girl entirely, but it really didn't make any of that clear.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link