site banner
PaperclipPerfector  6d ago (text post)   22545 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of April 27, 2026

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.

3
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

What do you call the set of data used to train an LLM? Is it just "training data"?

The point is that the training data is not accessible at inference time. To the extent that being trained on chess data gives the LLM information about how to respond to a particular opening, it's because the LLM has learned that information, similarly to how a human studying openings has.

But anyway, my point is that it's possible for an LLM to make legal chess moves without actually modeling chess. Do you dispute this?

Sure, in the same way that it's possible for a human to make legal chess moves without modeling chess:

  • you could just get lucky and make random moves that happen to be legal
  • you might know how all the pieces move and that the goal is a checkmate but have basically no understanding of strategy (I am here btw)
  • the above, but you might have studied a book on chess openings and endgames

It's unclear to me at which point even a human can be said to "model" chess.

The point is that the training data is not accessible at inference time. To the extent that being trained on chess data gives the LLM information about how to respond to a particular opening, it's because the LLM has learned that information, similarly to how a human studying openings has.

I'm not sure I understand your point here.

Here's a claim I am making:

A possible reason why an LLM makes a legal chess move is that it simply makes a good (but imperfect) guess as to what's likely to be the next move after a sequence of moves, as a result of all machine learning from all the chess games in the training data.

Do you dispute this claim?

It's unclear to me at which point even a human can be said to "model" chess.

Here's an example of what I think it means to "model" chess. Suppose you are playing postal chess with someone -- instead of sitting at a chess board, you send each other postcards with chess moves written on them. After a few postcards go back and forth, you decide it would be helpful to set up a chessboard in order to keep track of what's going on and for each move, you make a corresponding move on the chessboard. Or, if you are really talented, you envision a chessboard in your head. Those are models. They are representations of the game which enable you to analyze the game.

Do you dispute this claim?

Only to the extent that this claim applies to humans too, so it's not clear to me how this is supposed to draw a line between what humans do and what LLMs do.

After a few postcards go back and forth, you decide it would be helpful to set up a chessboard in order to keep track of what's going on and for each move

Okay. But we know that LLMs can keep track of the game by printing the current state of the board and updating each time you or it make a move. So in what way do LLMs not model chess?

Only to the extent that this claim applies to humans too, so it's not clear to me how this is supposed to draw a line between what humans do and what LLMs do.

Well the claim I was responding to is that LLMs MUST be modelling chess, because otherwise they would not be able to make legal moves at a rate better than chance. This claim pretty clearly seems to be incorrect.

Beyond that, I don't really understand your point. Here's an example to show what I mean:

There used to be these books you could buy, I think they were called "Informers." They contained records of all IM or higher level chess games for some time period. In theory, you could buy a set of them and have a big library of Informers. Ok, suppose you are playing postal chess with someone and you observe that they make a series of legal moves. Most likely, the person has a chess board set up in their house which they are using to analyze the game. Possibly, they have no chessboard set up and they are just looking up similar games in the Informers and playing whatever moves most masters played in similar positions.

So regardless of whether you are playing a human or playing an LLM, it's potentially possible for your opponent to make legal moves, even a series of legal moves, without modeling the game.

In my non-expert view, LLMs don't create sophisticated models the way humans do. Perhaps chess isn't the best example of this since there was no chess in the ancestral environment. But they definitely can and do create rudimentary models and I think that there's a good chance this will improve a lot in the future.

But we know that LLMs can keep track of the game by printing the current state of the board and updating each time you or it make a move.

I don't know that, but I'm certainly willing to agree that's potentially possible. That's basically how the LLM modeled the simple game I had invented for purposes of testing it. Once it started doing creating a rudimentary model along these lines, it stopped making illegal moves.

So in what way do LLMs not model chess?

By not modeling chess. I mean, even if one allows that an LLM can set up a rudimentary model along the lines you describe, it's not carved into stone anywhere that they must do so.

It's unclear to me at which point even a human can be said to "model" chess.

Many humans of course do openings in a somewhat similar way; they memorize a bunch. The modelling comes in that a (competent) human will have memorized a number of opening variations, and will play into one that matches what he wants for the midgame; the LLM has essentially memorized a number of opening variations and then picks one using an element of randomness.

It's certainly possible to play good chess without memorizing openings; time constraints are the main reason to do so.

You can say: "Hmm, e4 -- he wants to dominate the centre with that pawn. I need to contest it; e5 would work -- or I could do it indirectly, like Nf6? But then he will just advance the pawn and threaten my knight; seems like a wasted move. Better stick with e5."

This takes much longer than "let's go for the Italian Game", but it's the kind of modelling that you need to do once beyond your memorized opening; LLMs don't do anything like that ever.

This argument smells like the old canard of LLMs not being able to do anything novel, not being able to do anything that they haven't seen before. Again, I think this can be dismissed out of hand now that LLMs are solving open math problems.

LLMs don't do anything like that ever.

LLMs don't make plans while evaluating tradeoffs and then do things to put those plans into action? I don't know how you can even believe that in May 2026. Have you never used a coding agent and had it plan a solution, seen it analyze different approaches with their respective tradeoffs, and seen it propose the option it thinks is best?

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats