site banner
PaperclipPerfector  19hr ago (text post)   3275 thread views

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.

Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Mutually assured destruction doesn't hold for AI

Sure it does. AI, as currently constituted, is more vulnerable to MAD than governmental bodies, not less.

states would like to have dominance in the area.

There's a difference between dominance in nuclear weapons and more powerful nuclear weapons.

Sure it does. AI, as currently constituted, is more vulnerable to MAD than governmental bodies, not less.

This isn't true. MAD works because of second strike capabilities, there is no AI second strike.

There's a difference between dominance in nuclear weapons and more powerful nuclear weapons.

Dominance in nuclear doesn't scale the way dominance in AI scales. You don't get better at world dominance by developing much stronger or numerous nuclear weapons than it takes to obliterate your rivals. AI capabilities continuously enable dominance of your rivals. If your AI is smarter it can defeat your rivals cybersecurity, build more efficient weapons and design better contingencies. A sufficient power gap in AI capabilities could make a conflict look as one sided as Britain with the maxim gun vs natives armed with wooden spears.

MAD works because of second strike capabilities

You don't necessarily need second strike if you have launch on warning.

AI capabilities continuously enable dominance of your rivals.

And this is why we will never have an AI that becomes more powerful than the US government wants it to be. You see, the US has had a continuous advantage in AI technology over its enemies since the 1950s, with an escalating advantage in the 1980s. Over the past four decades of continuous advantage, it has continually dominated its rivals, and will use its continuing edge to retard hostile AI development to exactly the level of development that it deems acceptable. This also means that the US will be able to safely stop developing AI well before reaching the area where AI is dangerous, since it can simply decide to retard the progress of hostile AIs using its considerable AI capability advantage in such a way as to leave its own AI capabilities considerably more powerful. You're already living in the world with the Maxim Gun, it's just not polite to advertise it.

Or...perhaps an advantage in AI isn't everything.

This also means that the US will be able to safely stop developing AI well before reaching the area where AI is dangerous, since it can simply decide to retard the progress of hostile AIs using its considerable AI capability advantage in such a way as to leave its own AI capabilities considerably more powerful.

This doesn't make any sense. America has stayed ahead in ai development by just developing it faster, this does not in any way imply the ability to flick an off switch. They'd need to be at the point over being able to overthrow the CCP to do this. It's just another form of one world government.

I agree that an edge in AI does not translate over to dominating your rivals.

you prevent an edge from turning into an overwhelming power imbalance by developing your own capabilities. Which means your theory that they might develop AI just up until the point where it can control the population and no further cannot occur in any multi-state system.

My theory? This is your theory!

You said earlier

I think most governments have similar incentives for, well, aligning AI to be powerful enough to succeed at its tasks, but not so powerful as to be uncontrollable.

This, to me, contradicts unbounded development to maintain edge over rival nations.

Correct.

Now I am not saying that unbounded development is impossible and I (would argue that I) take alignment fairly "seriously" but if you look at other weapons systems we don't see unbounded development there. So our expectations should be that future weapons development will continue along similar lines. Not that that is the only course but that it is the most likely course.

You could counter-argue that over a long-enough timeline improbable events become likely, which is fair enough. But of course that is true of essentially all existential risks and does not imply that existential risk from AI is especially likely relative to other existential risks.

Does that make sense?

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