site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of February 23, 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.

4
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I doubt an AI agent's ability to generate a feature length anything that's coherent. Ask an AI to write a novel and it'll fizzle out around 10,000 words in. I'm convinced that the AI assisted smut romance novels that are popular recently are mostly driven by a human gooning while proompting the AI for the next chapter. I doubt that it can be done fully autonomously, those actually fake books that are just words on a page not included of course

I would expect that one of the biggest limitations on long run narrative coherence is time horizon. The doubling time for time horizon is anywhere from 2-7 months.

A typical novel is about 80000 words, so three doublings in length (6-21 months). To be conservative i'll assume novel complexity/task time scales with the square of word count. This is based on each additional word having to mesh with all previous words. This would give 6 doublings or 12-42 months.

I suspect this is an overestimate because complexity probably increases until the climax then begins to drop off.

To be fair to AI I've fizzled out on a dozen or so stories after writing about 10k words.

I think there might be a hump at a that point where where story idea turns into story and I'm not sure it's easy for most people to pass.

This is very unlikely to be accepted:

  • Too subjective to be useful, and far too ambiguous. Who's doing the grading here? How are they assessing "coherence"? How are we blinding things, if not, how do we account for bias?

  • We strongly prefer actual programming tasks, not creative writing. We could easily ask Claude to write a novel, and it would do it, but then we're back at the issue of grading it properly.

If you want to propose something like this, you need to be as rigorous as @faul_sname up in the thread. At the very least, propose evaluators that aren't you or the two of us, and we can see if it's possible to make this work.

This wasn't meant as a suggestion, just an observation. My suggestion is below.