site banner

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
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The situation reminds me of the early days of computers. There was a lot of hype. For example, I had a high school English teacher who had all of the students write a paper using a word processor. Which was very cumbersome to use and the dot matrix printout of the essay looked pretty lousy. A Schoolhouse Rock! type video came out which, as I recall, promoted the use of home PC's to store recipes. Something which really wasn't practical for computers at the time. It was very common for kids to go to computer camp in the summer.

I was going to link that Schoolhouse Rock! type video (it was called "Scooter Computer and Mr. Chips") but it was so cringe, I just couldn't bring myself to watch.

Basically the early boosters of computers were ultimately correct, it's just that apparently there is a Moore's Law of Hype which is even more potent that the Moore's Law of computer chips.

My best guess is that the situation with AI is analogous; that right now we are in the mid to late 80s.

What interests me about this is that for all of the retrospective mocking of Paul krugman's comparison of the internet to a fax machine, in terms of economic growth it didn't really change much.

For all the promise of computers, the internet, smartphones, etc. first world economic growth has been stagnant since the 2000s. Even for the US, a relative success story, real GDP per capita growth has been slower in the last 25 years then it was from 1950 to 75 or 1975 to 2000.

What do we do if AI changes much of our lives, but doesn't produce anywhere near the promised economic growth?

there is a Moore's Law of Hype

Actually it's Gartner's

And yeah it's the same with essentially every technology, the longer you live the more of these we see, and the most common failure modes for looking at this are: "it's all tulip mania, no new technology has any use" and "everything is going to change forever tomorrow, it's the end of the world as we know it".

Nothing ever happens. Except change, which is always happening, slowly.

See also Roy Amara's law (1978):

We tend to overestimate the effect of a technology in the short run and underestimate the effect in the long run.