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 -
Yet those are the actual odds presented by the most accurate forecasting method we have. Maybe if the public has turned against the Trump admin so much that the electoral odds look like fantasy, it should be reason to self reflect on those failures that brought us here? Maybe one of the most unpopular wars in history was a mistake and no amount of propaganda changes that.
And as always with prediction markets, if you don't believe them, then go bet against it and make a lot of money.
As you regularly invoke LLMs' opinions as evidence, I went ahead and asked Claude Opus 5.5:
Its answer begins:
Claude made it clear that the answer varies based on topic, so I went and asked whether prediction markets are the best forecasting method for predicting who will win in a given state. Its answer:
Is this enough to get you to admit that LLMs' opinions aren't actually conclusive evidence?
You do, actually, have to pick one:
a) You were wrong to call prediction markets the most accurate forecasting method.
b) You shouldn't cite LLMs' opinions as evidence.
I think Claude is wrong and both polling aggregators like Nate Silver and betting/prediction markets have consistently outperformed elite pundits at election prediction.
These midterms will be a good test - both polls and prediction markets are predicting a landslide, while the pundit consensus is that the Democrats are narrow favourites to win the House and have no chance in the Senate.
Random conservatives on the internet, of whom we have a great many here, are equivalent to a rock with "The polls are rigged, the GOP will win easily." Such a rock would have called two of the last three Presidential elections correctly (but zero of the last three mid-terms), but I don't think that is good evidence that the writing on the rock is causally connected to election results. The rock probably beats elite pundits, but so do tossed coins, psychic octopuses, the hemline rule, astrology and technical analysis.
Yes, I do actually agree -- AFAICT, proper prediction markets consistently outperform other predictors in this domain.
My goal here is just to get magicalkittycat to acknowledge that Claude saying X shouldn't be used on the Motte as dispositive towards X being true.
I'd hoped that by bringing up an example where mkc and I actually agree on the object level (that prediction markets are very good, actually), this might be enough for mkc to recognise the point.
Unfortunately, this isn't what has happened.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This is the most hilarious nitpick I've ever seen.
Your response is Claude pointing out "okay prediction markets are really good but they aren't the best at everything all the time and sometimes other methods are just as good"?
Truly incredible. You dismiss the prediction markets as fantasy and yet your own attempt at a defense admits they are really good. Split hairs all you want over what "best" means, the odds are still the odds.
This is how you act anytime someone points out verifiable facts that go against you, you don't actually address the claims (in fact again your own defense is actively acknowledging the prediction markets are top tier and highly accurate), you just throw a tantrum and try to divert the topic. The odds are the odds and your behavior doesn't change that, reality will not bend because it triggers you.
Stop lying.
Stop lying. Where did I say that?
Stop lying. Where did I say that?
Stop lying. Where did I say that?
Are you confusing me with a different user? Because none of what you've said is in my comment.
I actually think that prediction markets are very good. But my comment is about getting you to acknowledge that LLMs are not a source of evidence. This takes basic reading comprehension to understand, so I get that it's easier to make up a bunch of stuff I didn't say. But could you maybe try being honest for once, instead of just lying?
Frontier models are definitely a form of evidence just not proof. I think it'd be fair to call their position the null hypothesis from which to argue from, not infallible by any means but if you disagree you should have a reason. And the response you got from claude barely disagreed with MK.
More options
Context Copy link
Yep I double checked and you're a different person than who I originally responded to. Their claim was that the prediction market odds were fantasy.
I don't disagree much with Claude's take here! It's very hair splitting in determining which forecasting method counts as "best". Prediction markets are extremely good and some of the other traditional methods are also extremely good and if I would rank one as 94 points and the other as 96 points, and vice versa from Claude, I don't see this as radical disagreement.
We both still agree they're ~95 points good.
I accept your apology for falsely attributing a bunch of claims to me.
Dude, I know. I actually agree with you on the object level. I'm trying to get you to understand that what LLMs believe should not be presented as evidence on the Motte.
You claimed that prediction markets are the best predictor.
Claude disagrees.
No one said "radical" disagreement. I'm solely pointing out that, according to Claude, you are wrong. (I actually back you over Claude here; that's my point!)
This is how it reads whenever someone else posts a comment, and you respond by going "well Claude says not-X". Claude saying not-X isn't relevant! It's just going "my LLM could beat up your LLM".
Do you at least agree that, in principle, if I could show an LLM outputting beliefs you believe are wrong (which I think I'vce done a couple of times by now), that this would suffice to show that LLMs' high-level opinions shouldn't be cited as evidence on the Motte?
This argument would work out a lot better if there was a meaningful distinction here and not hair splitting between my saying prediction markets are the best and Claude going prediction markets are one of the best in some contexts but not in everything.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link