site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2d ago (text post)   7899 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 7, 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.

4
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Sad to see humans are the same, no matter their calling. Status obsessed, putting themselves in front of their principal which is their field. Second time now humans have attempted to frontrun AI. First one was some woman who claimed to have reduced the minimal known infinitely occuring prime gap to 246, only for OpenAI in a footnote to the Astra announcement at most a couple of days later to reduce it independently to 186. (Between these two reductions Axiom, an AI lab reduced it to 212.)

Now we have someone who was offered a pity credit on something achieved indepedently of him, on the condition his friend who also did not contribute to the result, not be credited, publishing a partial result, while admiting he thinks a full resolution (at least according to Clay Institute criteria) will be published soon.

I wanted to post about this once OpenAI makes the announcement, as I feel right now we only have partial information, and this is not exactly US starts war with Iran level urgent news, that would morally require opinions the very second event happened.

Edit: Guess the rumours about Anthropic solving a Millenium problem that circulated a couple of days ago, were not unfounded.

Edit2: OpenAI announcement.

"...independently..?" Are you shitting me? He showed proof positive they stole his work, and you're trying to frame him as the scammer?

Just utterly embarassing. AI fanbois are a cult, this thread is proof.

He showed proof positive they stole his work

Can you link this or provide any evidence? His own statement specifically states that he has no knowledge if OpenAI stole his work.

I would like to be clear about what I am not claiming. I have not seen OpenAI’s proof. I do not know what their model did, or how. I do not know whether our data was used. I am not accusing anyone of anything. I am stating what I was told, when, and what was proposed to me. I am stating it because the alternative is to let a sequence of announcements say something I know to be false.

The route to the Clay problem through a smooth force, options c and d in Fefferman’s statement of the problem, is the route Luis and Diego opened and the one Levent and I had quietly chosen to attack.

Only that the options C and D and the "forced" strongly concerned him.

Status obsessed, putting themselves in front of their principal which is their field.

You're talking about the schmuck threatening another man's career out of nowhere, right? The same guy demanding his rival be denied authorship?

Edit: Guess the rumours about Anthropic solving a Millenium problem that circulated a couple of days ago, were not unfounded.

OpenAI (not Anthropic) has announced a solution to the Navier-Stokes problem, one of the 7 Millennium problems.

https://openai.com/index/navier-stokes-solution/

Relevant paragraph:

”We (the researchers and the agents) did not see any of their work through any means until they released it publicly — in particular, no specific user data was accessed in order to solve this problem. While unlikely, we cannot rule out that de-identified data derived from their usage of our products helped improve our models⁠. However, our proofs differ significantly and even the precise results proved are different in the Euler case (forced vs unforced).”

Other relevant paragraph:

On Tuesday, September 1, we heard rumors that two Millennium Prize problems had been resolved. Inspired by these rumors and by the step change in performance of our internal model, we launched an effort to evaluate it on all open Millennium Prize problems and a few other high-impact problems.

They started prompting after hearing the rumors, does anyone not think the external mathematician's prompts didn't contrinute to their internal model?

Edit: Even more strange, as of Aug 28, an Open AI guy tweeted that Open AI had already tried mellinnium prize problems with limted tests unsuccessfully. Another breadcrumb suggesting the internal model that they developed included the draft paper in the training data.

I have no idea what OpenAI’s internal data pipelines look like, but I think it’s best to assume that anything you type into the chatbox can and will be used against you by Sam Altman/the government/The Basilisk.

but I think it’s best to assume that anything you type into the chatbox can and will be used by Sam Altman/the government/The Basilisk.

ftfy. There's no reason that them using it would be against you.

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