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 -
Here's my take:
I don't think people should write posts using LLMs, and my inclination is to warn/ban anyone who does it.
The problem is that I have to be pretty damn sure because it's easy to register false positives. Already people tend to assume any long wall of text was probably written by an AI. So given a choice between being trolled by AI posts or overzealously banning anything that smells at all like AI, I'm going to mostly let it go.
Of course when you admit using AI it presents a problem, because we appreciate the honesty but don't want you to keep doing it.
There is also a gray area where people are using AI to "help" them write posts. We obviously cannot ban anything touched even a little by AI, but how much is too much? @self_made_human uses AI to draft some of his posts. I dislike this, but....shrug
Personally I like AI, but not for writing anything I care about. Your words here should be your own...unpolished, half thought out and all.
That's my opinion but we haven't really settled on an official mod position other than pure AI posts where you just paste the output of an LLM are right out.
Your record as a troll means I'm less likely to look on this charitably, but other mods seem disinclined to mod it and honestly I was only suspicious, not certain. So you get a pass this time, but do not treat this as an invitation to keep testing how much you can get away with.
Not that you really care what I think, but I think the best AI policy for this place is something along the lines of this "pure AI posts where you just paste the output of an LLM are right out" but with some "you know it when you see it" ratio of quality:length consideration.
The white-collar world, specifically Lawyers as that's related to my job, is clearly on its way to a policy/stance of "sure use AI, but you still own every word on that page". Which I think is the best way to treat AI.
It is increasingly likely that AI writing will get harder to detect. And while emotionally I would be annoyed to read 100% AI comments and if I got into an argument with someone and they were just a LLM sockpuppet account I would be really pissed off. But kind of like that matrix steak scene, if you don't know, does it matter?
Hence the quality:length thing. If someone is shitting up this site by vomiting LLM garbage all over it. Very bad. If someone "gets away" with AI posts and they're high quality, who cares?
If an AI writes a comment so good it makes me think and engage, aside from my (I wont say arbitrary, but its not a law of physics that AI writing is of low social value) preferences that say I don't value AI, does it matter?
Unfortunately there's not much we can do to get him to own every word on the page. We aren't a judge. All he has to do is post and ignore any criticism.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link