site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 19, 2026

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.

To expand on a comment I made in the previous thread, the situation in Minnesota has made me realize that in the impending AI revolution, in the best case scenario (where we don't get slaughtered by Skynet; we have machines to do our labor for us; and there is some sort of social assistance for all the newly unemployed) it's pretty likely there will be a huge amount of social unrest, separate and apart from issues arising from the AI revolution.

I had assumed that in such a scenario, most people would either pursue interesting hobbies or self-destructive hedonism. But the situation in Minnesota makes me realize that a lot of people are going to look for political causes and use those as an excuse to harass others while feeling morally superior in doing so.

Obviously these things are very difficult to predict, but the Summer of Floyd is instructive, I think. A lot of the rioters were people who were furloughed during Covid and collecting unemployment insurance.

You are also not contemplating the most likely middle-ground nightmare scenario: There is no singularity, but AI is good enough that it puts most of the middle class out of work, there is no UBI and now you have a bunch of people who are purposeless, humiliated, have a lot of free time, and are pissed off and have nothing to lose due to their now degraded economic and social state.

Or the converse: AI gets just strong enough to keep the resulting bunch of purposeless, humiliated humans under control.

Yeah. These middle-ground scenarios are so absurdly under-discussed that I can't help but see the entire field of AI-safety as a complete clownshow. It doesn't even take a lot of imagination to outline them.

I can’t rebut the statement that these scenarios are “under-discussed” (since that depends on how much you personally think they should be discussed), but it’s certainly false that these scenarios go undiscussed. For examples of long essays written about (approximately) these scenarios, see here and here.

From the intro to the former essay:

Powerful AI will push automation through existing organizations, starting from the bottom and moving to the top. AI will obsolete even outlier human talent. Social mobility will stop, ending the social dynamism and progress that it drives. Non-human factors of production, like capital, resources, and control over AI, will become overwhelmingly more important than humans. This will usher in incentives for powerful actors around the world that break the modern social contract. This could result in the gradual—or sudden—disempowerment of the vast majority of humanity.

Seems pretty similar to what’s being discussed in this subthread.

It's not just automation, the discussed scenario was " AI gets just strong enough to keep the resulting bunch of purposeless, humiliated humans under control". My emphasis would be on the "under control" part. Even when discussing automation, they have tendency of veering off into fantasy scenarios of full-automation, when the more likely ones are comparative-advantage mediated push towards menial labor in service of the AI god.

I mean, reading these essays, they seem to be pretty focused on the idea that AI can be used for mass control and suppression. Chapter 4 of the first essay that I linked is rather explicit about this:

We expect states to have far more infrastructural power as AI advances, in line with Bullock, Hammond, and Krier’s conception of the AGI-powered “Despotic Leviathan”. As such, powerful actors could spot nearly all major threats to their power. Moreover, new technologies like cheap and very effective autonomous drones could also change the balance of power such that armed uprisings cannot threaten the state.

Is your contention that these discussions are predicated on “full automation” scenarios while you think that there aren’t any obstacles stopping an AI-powered tyranny from happening now?

Is your contention that these discussions are predicated on “full automation” scenarios while you think that there aren’t any obstacles stopping an AI-powered tyranny from happening now?

Sort of. My contention still boils down to "under-discussed", that the issues that are more likely to happen take up less focus than ones that are less likely to happen. The "full automation" thing is an example of this - AI developing to the point where it replaces literally everyone / the vast majority of people can happen somewhere down the line, but a scenario where everybody still has a job, because it makes more sense to let AI specialize in data professing, while humans focus on menial jobs is more likely, and unpleasant enough to warrant discussion.

I only had a skim of the essay you linked, and it's indeed more like what I'd like to see, but not quite there yet.