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 -
Ok, how about a simplified test. Write 500 words without AI on a topic of your choice, or pick any unpublished writing you have saved up. It's quite short so I don't think this is a major burden.
The challenge will be to have the AI create a 500 word passage on any topic, it doesn't have to be the same, where when placed side by side, it will not be obvious which passage is AI. Any means and methods including agents are permitted as long as all output tokens came from the AI model. Any verbatim copying of human written text outside of quotations is not permitted.
Verification will be done by comments on this forum, where anyone with an established account can vote for one being AI.
The result will be determined by a 1-sided Z-test with p=0.05. If voters on this forum overall can determine which one is AI with statistical significance, the AI has failed the vibe check.
Voters can use any means and mechanisms to detect AI.
Sounds interesting enough. I will note that using LLMs to write 500 words using my own work as a style reference and then just using that verbatim as a comment/post is not how I actually use them.
But as a general experiment? Sure, I'd be interested to see the results.
Does this preclude all human intervention after hitting go? Am I forbidden from telling the model that it has failed to capture my style or my opinions correctly, then either suggesting specific corrections or more broad advice?
You can guide and criticize the model as much as you want throughout the process, but none of your queries can be reproduced word for word in the final text.
Ok: the second sentence sounds bad, rewrite it.
Not ok: Try starting the second sentence with "However, this is not..." - This approach would result in words you wrote getting into the final output.
Hmm. I think that would be acceptable. Stand by for results, though it might take a while for us to hash it all out on our end.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link