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 have to preface this by saying that I normally don't think highly of you as a poster. When I saw your header, my first instinct was to roll my eyes and minimize the conversation. But I did end up reading it, and I'm really glad I did. This was an excellent essay, a worthy indulgence for the sin of a few dozen shitposts.
Dead wrong on every single value judgement throughout, of course, but beautifully, hilariously so.
Excellent trolling. I actually had a few hundred words written before I realized you didn't include any links or real background info, and then realized why.
To hasten things for everyone else, article.
The school in question was a central planning initiative that's been captured by the French deep state since basically the beginning. It's a finishing school and personality-killing brainwashing symposeum for nomenklatura kids, and very very much an example of Selection, to the little extent that entire framing is worthwhile.
Which is, of course, the entire point of the post. Being carefully, forcefully stupid in a way that demands reponse from the 'tism.
Gr8 B8 M8.
I wonder what your take on AI-assisted writing is. No particular reason, of course, though you might want to look at my mod-hatted reply.
The main paragraph that stood out as AI, which @BurdensomeCount himself acknowledged above, was extremely obvious. I noticed it immediately because, I’m sorry to say, it read a lot like some of the things you’ve written recently in style and tone. The rest was a mix, but clearly quite a lot was written or rewritten by him.
In general, there are two issues with LLMposting. The first is the obvious quality issue. That paragraph and some other text stands out but eventually this issue is clearly going to be solved, this isn’t magic and it is presumably only a matter of time before the LLM can authentically recreate our small foibles and stylistic elements of our writing. The second is the honor system, where this community becomes pointless if we’re all reading LLM writing we could generate ourselves (either directly or prompted by a tweet-length thought).
For this reason, I think people are opposed to LLM users now because of what it bodes for the future. We can detect it (mostly, in some long posts, by regulars) for now, but we won’t be able to forever. Soon, it will be purely the honor system.
I did not even need the "main paragraph" to know what he did, it's obvious to me, and probably other people who do use LLMs a lot. I don't doubt that you noticed too. I do not think that his "explanation" is unbelievable, but do forgive me if my reaction to him offering me a sealed bottle of water is to send it off for chemical analysis. If he hadn't admitted to it, I would have banned him. He did admit to it, so I am not sure what to do. I am slightly annoyed none of the other moderators have stepped in and taken the problem out of my hands, but can't blame them for that. My inner conflict is my own, and I am genuinely unsure if more moderation effort is required beyond telling him "We know what you're up to."
I know. I noticed and found it deeply uncomfortable. If it makes you feel better, I've already dialed downed the usage of AI for stylistic advice or editing significantly, because I've increasingly come around to the people who think that that it dilutes my own voice and personality. That, by itself, would not have been enough, but I've noticed other people doing the same thing in the wild: I do not want the primary difference between Count and myself to be the arguments we make, with our style and tone being similar.
Dialing down is, of course, not zero. But you can see how my most recent long-form post is more "me" in style than what came before. This is a recent development, mere weeks. I don't think I did anything morally wrong, but I do not want to become part of a homogeneous blob of writers with pleasant but startlingly similar prose.
For the rest of your points? I don't disagree. We will soon be unable to tell. I'm lucky that I have a digital record predating LLMs that I can point at to show that I don't need them as a crutch or as a total replacement, more as a regular tool or aide. But that is not a binary matter either.
Hey, I have the same thing as well...
I'm left wondering whether there's a market for me writing a post fully from scratch and then putting it through an LLM before uploading the result instead of my original post so that keen eyed detectives such as yourselves have something to point to below the surface meaning of the text itself; think of it as an Easter Egg (quite topical), if you will. I already strive to make my posts work on multiple levels, and there's always the allure to add yet another an extra dimension in.
.... maybe. This is a very bad time to be fishing for compliments, at least from me. I do not doubt you can write well, or that you are capable of making high effort, good-faith arguments. With no comment on the former, I would prefer to see more of the latter.
Also, you have been warned for LLM-baiting in the past. I would advise, for the health and longevity of your current account, that you do not try this experiment without talking to us mods first.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I abhor the abominable intelligence, as you may know.
But this is actually an exemption. I loved the early AI stuff because it produced spectacular surrealist humor. The AI generated conspiracy theories is one of the funniest things I've ever seen. It's hard for humans to be that creative and absurd without descending into lolquirky, but GPT2 did that by default.
I didn't get that impression from the OP, but then I have a lot less experience with explicitly AI written text. It felt like it had Count's signature sneer. Does AI tend to produce that level of quasi-coherent argumentation? If I had to guess, given the prompt "AI was used", I'd say it was a messy screed that was organized and streamlined by an AI.
I think your link might be broken. Leads to a dead reddit link.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Crazy how some people think this essay was better than my unassisted writings while others insist that it's worse.
Were I a tabloid style writer I might make a new post titled "Is AI the new Marmite?" (whether it would be made with or without AI assistance is left as an exercise for the reader).
Makes me feel good inside TBH. When I was in high school and college I can remember two of my professors calling my name out at the beginning of class and asking me to stay behind after class was over because they wanted to know where I learned to write. One of them said I wrote graduate level academic literature, full of citations, extensive vocabulary use, etc. Shocked me both times it happened. I did just enough in English classes to get by because I wasn’t very invested and engaged with the work. But I always had talent as a successful imitator, and knew how things were ‘supposed to look’, all the way down to the finest details. They always thought I had these amazing gifts, and maybe they were right. I always looked at it as being a successful bullshit artist that can produce real work when it came to boring assignments. I was always one of those guys though who was his own best and worst critic.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link