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 -
I suppose the snark is aimed at me. So I guess I'll start with the snark right back, first. My comment included multiple very hopeful things, and a big part of that was due to the linked post's discussion of Alethia's performance on First Proof, which you would have known if you had read either of them. This now is just the ArXiV version of it.
I am still quite very hopeful, and it's nice to see the actual proofs that were generated. It is quite unfortunate that I can't beat on the system with my own problems to get a personal feel for it. I also endorse pretty much everything @PokerPirate has said below up to this point.
Obvious remaining concerns are obvious. It still generated wrong proofs, when evaluated by experts. Many many many hours of evaluation work. That can plausibly be managed; wrong proofs are definitely out there. I will repeat my related concern that the ballgame is quite different when you're working on a problem where you don't already have a solution (that is, where you don't know that a solution exists). And as you mention, cost, question mark? They're unclear about it, and what they do have looks scary, especially if you look at the numbers floating around in their prior papers (also untethered from an absolute scale, but wild in a relative scale).
More options
Context Copy link