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 -
So they claim, yet real prices are nowhere near pre-war levels. Reminds me of that old Stonetoss comic about Bitcoin.
Then: "Oil rises to $75!"
Later: "Oil CRASHES to $85!"
Later still: "Oil PLUMMETS to $95!"
All this without even mentioning that bond yields continue to soar despite Bessent burning billions in bond buybacks. At this point Trump's best chance to get prices back to normal is to hope for a global depression that kneecaps global demand sufficiently to make the Strait(s) irrelevant.
I would dare, because it's basically an American surrender to expect all the sanctions relief up front, before any discussion of the nuclear issue. Trump obviously wasn't going to accept, the point was to make Trump look obstinate to the neutrals. "Look, we're reasonable but Madman Trump would rather crash the global economy than make any concessions!"
Uh, obviously the Iranians would prefer Trump give up immediately rather than having to endure two more months/years of fighting.
Regardless, the Iranians have already done enough to ensure that the Dems retake Congress. Kalshi has them at 91% for the House and 63% for the Senate. They're already predicted to win Republican strongholds like Texas (62%) and Alaska (70%). The only real question is whether they think they've hurt Trump enough politically to establish deterrence or whether they decide to escalate and give Trump an October Surprise big enough to flip Kansas and Nebraska too.
These are two analyses from JP Morgan Chase and Goldman Sachs, not the American government.
Prices are falling. We would expect that the longer supply stays at pre-war levels the closer prices will get to pre-war levels too.
Fantasy world political predictions. It would sound more reasonable if you just said you thought Democrats were going to take the House.
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.
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.
Not in general, and certainly not for culture war issues. That's handing a gigantic unearned advantage to any political positions aligned with LLM biases, which are well documented.
Yes, in the same way that everything is evidence. But that doesn't make their opinion valuable when arguing stuff here.
If we're arguing over some factual point, e.g. "are tomatoes a vegetable?", it might make sense to invoke an LLM's response (though linking to an actual source is probably better). But when we're arguing over some high-level subjective thing (e.g. "who broke more norms, Biden or Trump?") then going "Claude agrees with me that Trump is worse!" is not useful evidence.
The point of this place is to actually discuss things, make arguments, and defend positions; not to invoke an LLM's opinion as an authority.
mkc said that prediction markets were the best predictor.
Claude said they are not the best predictor.
If mkc believes prediction markets are very good, that's fine. Calling them the most accurate is a deliberately strong (maximally strong) claim. Words do actually mean things. You don't get to make the strongest form of your claim for convenience, then swap it out for a weaker claim when "disproven".
My response to both of your points is the same. Unless you specifically prompt them otherwise the output from frontier models is always very hedged, which is why it half agreed with MKC without being willing to really fall on one side. You're taking a hedge as disagreement, in reality it neither endorses nor disagrees with MK, which is a fine null hypothesis. Where it doesn't hedge and outright states something is false or true it's pretty trustworthy unless you have strong evidence.
Zvi calls this concept bounded mistrust and it applies to all media sources. They can mislead but almost never lie.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link