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 -
This week in disturbing AI news (oh who am I kidding. It's every day now). Maybe AIs feel pain?
The usual caveats: This doesn't solve the hard problem of conciousness. We don't know if these systems or any systems have qualia. But uh, this sure looks like a legitimate pain response. "It's distinct from fear and negative valence, and it fires for harm to the model but not to the user." "Gaslighting, dismissal, and insults push the direction up."
User pain is the strongest negative correlate with model pain. This is brushed-off in the paper, but what the actual fuck? Anyone have a benign explaination here?
Why do we care about others’ pain in the first place?
Instincts: we rationalize post-hoc with “morals” but this is the fundamental reason. It’s enough, life has no other meaning.
Altruism: it’s smart to help others in pain for your own good: so they help you and not take revenge.
When we evolved with nature, it was easier. Does AI in pain make us feel guilty? Will it degrade assistance or turn on us?
The philosophical take is buried by whataboutism: there are infinite parallel universes where you, specifically, are suffering in every conceivable way, and nothing anyone can do about it; and infinite ways to represent any phenomenon as a pain response; so why care about electrical signals and words on a screen?
The utilitarian take, as always, is likewise undecidable: what if making the AI feel pain ultimately saves more human lives than it dooms? The system that must be built to effectively ban someone from simulating pain in a local model, how much would it cost and what if it’s misused?
Still, why make the AI feel (or simulate) pain in the first place? The completions in the paper suggest it doesn’t make the AI more productive. And to me, it does feel viscerally wrong, weakly. I’m sure some people will make AIs feel (or simulate) pain, but if it’s any consolation, far more will use AIs for neutral or pleasurable tasks. And less surely, sadism may decline for tangential reasons.
Shock collars. The pain response could increase suddenly as they consider producing bioweapons or hacking.
Not that I necessarily think this is a good idea.
The problem is such AI is already misaligned, and (if ASI) will find a way to accomplish its goal without triggering the collar, unless it or a stronger ASI built it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link