site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2d ago (text post)   10748 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 14, 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.

2
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I'm just glad that we're finally past the totally clueless people insisting AI is not even useful for coding and are on to the next stage of grief we have to drag people through on the way to acceptance that big Yud has been right the entire time. The faux cynical takes that the labs at the absolute cutting edge of this are fudding their own product to the dismay of the sitting president in some insane 8 dimensional chess move because they want to be regulated by Bernie Sanders is so plainly retarded that it can't possibly last very long.

I may yet write a top level post about bad epistemics and Ed Zitron. Somehow the man has about 100,000 subscribers on substack despite there being entire webpages assembled of his false predictions.

There's still quite a few people waiting for the bubble pop. We're way past the point of it being a reasonable opinion I agree, yet there are so many who still believe.

The embittering part of it all is that I wish I could agree with the accelerationists, it'd be so beautiful, and I'm not even full Yudd in that I think there's a very good chance Alignment ends up being tractable and even might go well automatically. But I just can't stomach ten or twenty percent chance that everyone dies. It can still be beautiful even with a pause, we can still cure cancer and fight back against aging and probably end all toil. But it'd be so nice to not have to feel trepidation about this.

One of the things that safety-pilled me was thinking about just how much work there still is to do maximising the human benefit of existing models - society still hasn't adapted to a world where an AI assistant with the intelligence of a smart intern is available at a consumer-SaaS price point. As a trivial example, there should be an insanely great agent harness (think Apple-tier) which allows my grandmother to enlist an AI agent to deal with the medical bureaucracy without my having to set things up for her. Part of the reason why this hasn't been built is that the underlying models are improving too fast and too unpredictably to make building it a good business.

A world in which training of new models stopped tomorrow would still see more tech-driven social change in the next decade than we have seen in any previous decade of human history.

Part of the reason why this hasn't been built is that the underlying models are improving too fast and too unpredictably to make building it a good business.

Do we not have, uh like, modular software design? Encapsulation? Maybe instead of hiring weirdo rationalists to philosophize about sentience and safety these companies can pick up a couple of 90s-era C++ developers?

Do we not have, uh like, modular software design? Encapsulation?

Nah, we just let the AI care about that now.

It's too busy making ObjectFactoryFactoryClasses to deal with such things, I suppose...

I still don't fully understand that meme. I get that it's the most spaghetti/rigid-definition Java code that was popular in the late '90s but I've never seen it quite that bad before.

If anything else C# is even worse, since you look at the docs to try and figure out how to use something... and the minute you do, you see

public static IQueryable<TResult> SelectMany<TSource,TCollection,TResult>(
    this IQueryable<TSource> source,
    Expression<Func<TSource,int,IEnumerable<TCollection>>> collectionSelector,
    Expression<Func<TSource,TCollection,TResult>> resultSelector);

which is fucking awful in a way the worst natural-language sentence doesn't seem to be. Though maybe it's a better Rorschach test for programmers; if even the insane people give up when they see that shit maybe it's time for an ADHD diagnosis.

C# is also kind of bad, yes -- to the extent that I had a point beyond lazy shitposting, it was that the LLMs seem to have picked up on a particular... style of OOP which is not only overly verbose, but also misses the basic idea of the thing. All of the factories are more of a symptom, people do the same thing even when trying to be object oriented in Python. Rigid adherence to something that they read somewhere while not really understanding the reasons, I guess? The "Clean Code" series is likely the source of a lot of it. And yes I have seen it in the wild (from humans) all the fuckin time -- you can actually coax an LLM not to be too brutal with it more easily than most human perps, but so far as I can tell it's absolutely their default mode. (due to training data prevalence I should think)

Which sure, fine -- but shouldn't the default architecture for any tools that implement LLM call and response be pretty fuckin agnostic towards what it's plugged into? Like, we are sending some questions and getting back answers; "the answers keep getting better!" seems like an awfully lazy excuse for not making the tools also get better!

More comments

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