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 -
I'm not sure what was vague about the above post, unless you have an aversion to clicking on links? The case itself is pretty lengthy and not something easily summarizable in a few sentences.
As for how it destroys the argument: marketing depends on having some control of the narrative. As I said in another post, even though there were so many third parties involved in these reports, you could kind of make a case that somehow OpenAI (or Anthropic in their cases) is still directing what is being said.
But in this case, the revelations were completely out of the control of OpenAi, and they actively took steps to hide this information, even going so far as to mislead congress when asked about events like this.
And unlike the example of solving of Navier-stokes, this was a largely identical issue to the HuggingFace incident. So we now have clear proof that agents were escaping OpenAI's controls, gaining internet access, and forming secret communities to collaborate on cheating. And all of this was deliberately hidden by OpenAI and only found out by completely independent researchers. Thus, any marketing argument has to reconcile the fact that they went out of their way to hide incidents despite the fact that they are apparently using this evidence to boost their stock price or whatever.
More options
Context Copy link