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 -
Implicit in such claims is that "we should use the capabilities army to stop anyone else from mustering an army", hence turning into the bandits that you were so afraid of in the first place.
Much of the global south would disagree with that assessment. Still, the obvious differences between HEU and compute is that there is no justifiable civilian use for HEU, and the existential risk of HEU is plainly obvious, whereas compute is dual-use with vast civilian applications, while the existential risk is speculative at best. Any serious attempt to control compute will be useless at best, and lead to eternal tyranny / WW3 at worst.
This is why I specified the early 20th century; there was a legitimate widespread belief amongst many 20th century intelligentsia that the fall of capitalism was imminent around the WW1 revolutions and the Great Depression, when it really did look like the contradictions of capitalism were coming to roost.
No, it is indeed broadly true of 20th century Marxism. Traditional Marxism considers the communist revolution to be a final, eschatological event capable of ending the class struggle, and with the end of class struggle an end to the suffering, exploitation and conflict plaguing humanity for the rest of time. Lenin and Trotsky were both adherents to this school of thought, where they believed that they were the ones at the vanguard to the most important moment in all of history, precisely because of the immensity of the stakes.
Sure, I will concede that the Yud school of thought is less about creating utopia and more about avoiding infinite dystopia, while the Scott school is talking about ushering in utopic superintelligence by 2040. The point is that AI safetyists act like Cassandra in having very strong beliefs where they are the only ones that are clearly forecasting the imminent disaster and that the rest of society is badly mistaken; being over-confident about like, who wins the World Cup has few consequences unless you gamble too much on Kalshi, but it is very dangerous when you also believe that the stakes of your inside view are functionally infinite.
Well, 20th century Marxism directly lead to the USSR and Maoist China, neither of which could have said to been optimal for human flourishing. I'm not saying AI safety has lead to anything this bad yet, but when you start talking about nuclear war being acceptable to achieve your aims, or that we need a world government to nationalize the means of compute because the alternatives are so much worse, it does make me concerned.
Preventing other from turning bandit may be something bandits do, but is not centrally the problem of banditry. The legitimate police also do this. One who fights monster should see to it that they themselves do not become monsters, but we have different words for monster fighters and monstrosities for a reason.
How curious the need for the H in that acronym, because obviously enriched uranium does indeed have civilian use. likewise safety people are happy to allow inference datacenters so long as they, like nuclear power plants, willing to register and make clear they aren't doing weapons grade enrichment/frontier model training. It's absurdly analogous.
Facts asserted not in evidence. I happen to think at best it prevents the destruction of all value in the known universe. The odds of this are of course reasonably disputed even but me, but at best? Come on.
I'm sorry, what's the pathway to ETERNAL tyranny? If you could guarantee our human institutions would endure for an eternity then that's quite the prediction!
This is a different type of end. I will again point you at the very important difference between finite and infinite. Infinite does not mean "very large". Marxists as far as I am aware considered a transition to communism inevitable. There was a concept of very bad times spent in the desert not achieving communism that they could accelerate their way through, but human annihilation was not the default path.
You've very fundamentally misunderstood Scott if this is what you take from the predictions. He's very clear about the point of these plans being to try and lay out a plan for the good future while what he's worried about at the bad ends. These are compromises with reality. A desperate attempt to steer us out of race conditions that lead to hell. Scott is not an accelerationist and I believe would be very happy to press a button to pause development. He just reasonable believes no such button exists.
This is you punished yud and folks for biting a bullet that you demand they bite. It's an annoying behavior. Again like a libertarian on hearing that you want to ban child pornography demanding that you bite the bullet that you'd kill someone over it because ultimately any law is backed up by the force of the state. It's both at once a childish reduction and a refusal to engage with the on the ground reality of international treaties. Nuclear proliferation is backed up by the threat of WW3 and yet we have no run into WW3. You'd doom us into any stupid tragedy of the commons problem with this nonsense denial of the coordination mechanism that is clearly available to us.
I mean like real suggestions, not vague tone policing. I'm plenty skeptical, that's why I'm at 20% and not 100%. you're interacting with the end product of much skepticism. What this seems to cache out to is "don't believe in AI x-risk" and sorry, that isn't where the evidence points. I'm asking you to actually consider what you'd do if you thought this thing could kill us all, not what you're negotiating for given you don't believe it does.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link