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 -
The Anthropic C-suite needs to rewatch Oppenheimer.
More details are emerging regarding the US Government's decision to impose defense export controls on Claude Fable. There are lots of similarities between this kerfuffle and the February Supply Chain Risk designation. Somehow, Anthropic executives still don't understand the language of power and government. It's not hard. All they need to do is watch Oppenheimer (and pay attention this time). If they still can't figure it out, here is my cheat sheet:
If you are working on sufficiently powerful technology with dual-use applications, then you work for the War Department. There is no option for you to continue your preferred work while licensing only peaceful civilian applications of your product.
If you piss off the wrong person, you're screwed. Some people will see defeating you as a stepping stone to greater power and influence. Some people will work to destroy you simply out of spite.
Anthropic has scientific geniuses, Anthropic has an Oppenheimer, but does Anthropic have a General Groves? How far do you think Oppenheimer would have gotten without General Groves?
If you are trying to convince the government that you are not a security risk, do not hire people like this and present them as neutral experts. (No seriously, what the actual fuck were they thinking?)
You don't get to decide what counts as a security risk and what doesn't. That is the job of the government and the political process.
The president does not care about your ethical concerns. You think you know how much he doesn't care, but he actually cares much less than that.
If you aren't okay with the government using your technology, then don't build it. Isidor Rabi said no. You can say no too.
They need to emulate OpenAI, where Sam Altman has demonstrated he knows how to play political games and get positioned to be the guy left standing in any power struggles. I am informed by Google's AI overview that:
I don't much like Sam (for some weird and indefinable reason, it's just that every time I see him speaking he strikes me much the same as Zuckerberg: an android emulating humanity) but there's no question he has the survival instincts of a dockyard rat and Dario should crack open a copy of The Prince for advice on "So now you are the new big cheese in town and have your very own shiny new princedom. Congrats! Now here's how to hold on to it".
Seconded. "Legacy blue check"? I'd fire her backside into space for that alone.
A good friend of mine from college ended up doing thier did grad work at SAIL and then going on to write a good bit of DALL-E's original codebase. To this day they insist that to the extent that "AI" is dangerous that danger comes not from some foom scenario but from Silicon Valley being populated by autists and sociopaths with Altman specifically called out as one of the latter.
Not really sure why autists are catching strays in same category as sociopaths...
Because sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.
Ironic, I'll remember that quote when I try to understand why normies do stupid things.
Don't act like you wouldn't build the Torment Nexus form the classic Sci-Fi novel Don't Create the Torment Nexus if given the opportunity. This is why the OP is telling Anthropic (and the rest of the CFAR/MIRI crowd) that they need to rewatch Oppenheimer. Specifically the last two bullet points in mind.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I've noticed that, for a lot of normies, the former is just as bad as the latter and thus they don't even bother distinguishing between the two.
Double empathy problem strikes again. Maybe normies should consider what happens if you treat a group of non-sociopaths like sociopaths. "Something Something, burn down the village."
There's a lot more normies than autists, and they also hold far more social power, and so they don't really need to bother considering the consequences. Now, some autists sometimes hold a lot more physical power, but normies have been very successful at subverting/parasiting off of that with social power.
Yes but a house divided against itself cannot stand. These divisions are entirely self inflicted by normies. Social power used to be the predominant power, but in this age of technology we have seen an increase in "technological power". Autists seemed to be particularly advantaged at developing it. Normies can rage against that all they want, but short of regressing technology and all the advantages and comforts its provides, it's here to stay. I suppose normies are currently lucky that Autists aren't particularly tribal yet, but nothing makes people form tribes like coordinated persecution.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link