Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.
- 26
- 1
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
- Courtesy
- Content
- Engagement
- When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
- Proactively provide evidence in proportion to how partisan and inflammatory your claim might be.
- Accept temporary bans as a time-out, and don't attempt to rejoin the conversation until it's lifted.
- Don't attempt to build consensus or enforce ideological conformity.
- Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
- The Wildcard Rule
- The Metarule

Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Some of the weirdness is downstream of the contest parameters; I'd put some effort toward a short story using a recursive writing approach, but by the time it was remotely good prose, it wasn't clear it complied with the rules. Had similar issues with Phailyoor's challenge.
Some of it is definitely a toolset problem. The models themselves overwhelmingly aim toward <1k word 'chunks', and community efforts to bypass that like WriteLonger are very much band-aids. It's relatively easy to throw together a scaffold of scenes that interlace together, but you still get mini-climaxes at the end of each prompt and that gets grating fast. Claude tries to do something under the hood to hide the problem, as do some agentic setups, but they seem to do so by just gluing segments together. Whether you do that automatically or manually, it still results in unpleasant crescendos because the model thinks the scene or segment ends in places the tension is supposed to be rising. Some prompt scaffolds to give better control over pacing only squeeze that further together.
Like conventional art, there's a big problem where even most writers don't know the technical terms for what they're trying to do, and unlike conventional art with diffusers, writing in the Style of X doesn't work very well, and anything else takes a ton of input tokens. I've had some limited success by giving a handwritten example as input and then transferring the characters and background with them, but it's still not good, and it doesn't scale to longer works.
Context remains an issue. It's amazing that models can get into the 1-million-range, but few do well there. That's more of an issue with long-form writing -- this story isn't very good, sometimes in painful ways because it's close to it, but the prose quality goes from merely purple to outright blah by 30k tokens -- but it does still mean you can't just throw a hundred thousand words of setting and style bible into most models and get anything useful out.
Weirdly, the models are great at editing, both broad strokes and catching narrow typos, including for smaller models and sometimes even for genres that should be really hard for a token predictor to understand. The outcomes aren't always in the form I like, but it's usually nothing awful, or even as bad as the original prose. But you can't just cycle the same text through an LLM with a prompt of "do it better": on top of the token costs, it tends to just get set in cycles around a small subset of problems.
I keep hoping it'd be possible to get something better out of a more complicated script-based approach rather than a solely agentic one, but results have been mixed, and you end up with a thirty-page deep list of checkboxes for the models to review over and over.
More options
Context Copy link