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 -
Productivity for research mathematicians today is mostly evaluated as contributions made to resolving “important” open math problems.
If / when AI advances to a point where humans can no longer meaningfully contribute to this process then, at the very least, we'll need to reconsider how we evaluate human research math productivity.
Your statement above reads to me like, even if we get rid of the hoop, it means nothing for the profession of basketball in and of itself.
I think a slightly better analogy is that tomorrow there's a new rule that lowers the hoop in official basketball games to 8 or 9ft.
What are the first-order implications?
Height is less of an overwhelming advantage; many former basketball players quit the game out of disgust at the new rules, or because they're less competitive in short-hoop basketball, but other players formerly genetically barred from the apex of basketball become more competitive and perhaps there ends up being more basketballers overall.
Perhaps basketball becomes less popular because nobody wants to watch short-hoop basketball and basketballers suffer financially, or paradoxically it gets more popular because the game is less about the three-pointer meta and more about dunking again, and basketballers are more in demand than ever.
I don't think we really disagree that there are going to be large changes to how mathematics is practiced; the point is that technological changes cannot inherently alter anything in a system that is already artificially constructed by humans, and it is the impossible to predict societal changes arising as a result of technological progress that are what really going to affect mathematicians and basketballers.
Respectfully, I don’t think I’m following this reasoning. I think (?) you’re expressing several inter-related points with which I broadly agree:
We should view those pronouncing confidently about the future with skepticism (yes). Some aspect of research math has always involved aesthetic considerations (yes). If / when AI achieves manifestly superhuman capabilities in math, we’ll likely continue to see some humans devote attention to some forms of math exploration (yes). Support for modern research math projects is often promoted through reference to supposed diffuse economic contributions that are actually mostly a fiction (yes). Many job roles in modern economies are less directly related to profit-maximization than we may commonly assume, and are instead largely shaped by various traditions and social expectations (yes).
But the suggestion that “technological changes cannot inherently alter anything in a system that is already artificially constructed by humans”? I just don’t know what this means, concretely.
Baseball’s a system that’s artificially constructed by humans. Professional baseball has also struggled notoriously (and perennially) to police the use of disallowed “performance enhancing substances” (particularly steroids), which are a technology change. Now, imagine someone tomorrow develops a drug that makes players much faster & stronger - and its use is substantially impossible to detect. Wouldn’t we expect that development to significantly alter baseball?
I think that's a good summary of my viewpoint.
I worded that quite poorly; perhaps a better way to put it is that "the direction and magnitude of technological changes on human social structures can't be determined ipso facto".
Undetectable steroids would certainly change baseball, but do more or less people aim to go pro in baseball once it's widely known that you'll need to get onto steroids under the table to compete? Do audiences become more interested in the increased athleticism of the game, or do they lose interest because the game is now less about technical baseball prowess? Which types of baseball players ultimately end up better or worse off once these steroids are made available?
Questions like these are what mathematics and other professions are struggling with right now, but I think the answers to them can't really be determined by any way other than waiting and seeing what happens.
Yeah, strong agree on that point - Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future.
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