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 -
Are they wrong? You could argue they're wrong about the timeline, which is largely trying to predict unknown unknowns, but it does seem to me that once/if AGI is cracked it is pretty much true that nothing else matters.
Now, I'm kind of a doomer about AGI in the LW/rationalist sense, but even if you're not, every extant political system rests on the assumption that humans are a necessary input for production, and every economy relies on the spending of consumers to stay afloat.
What does debt load or shareholders matter in a world where humans no longer have any say via their ability to produce or their demand for consumption?
They could be right, but that doesn't change the facts: if you're examining this from an investor's perspective, the insiders don't really think in the same frame of mind we do.
The investor is like a sports gambler trying to bet on a fight, and the companies are like a fighter who thinks he's figured out a brand new unbeatable Steven Seagal kick that will win them the fight. The gambler is betting based on conditioning, style vs style, form in fights going into the match, etc. The fighter thinks that conditioning and form are pointless to worry about it because the only question is will the kick work or won't the kick work.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link