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 linked to a prior conversation that in turn linked to Anthropic's regulatory framework, and in your reply you acknowledged that.
As I said, "This does not necessarily mean that regulations are bad." I've been trying to figure out your position, which seems to be that regulation wouldn't hurt the little guys but would cost them money but it's not a regulatory moat. It seems quite possible that regulations can be good and be a regulatory moat, there's no contradiction there. But you've been arguing that they wouldn't serve as a moat, not that they are good or bad.
Okay, see this makes sense to me! Thank you! (Sincerely!) I don't think you would have gotten so many downvotes if you had said "a16z thinks regulation of the frontier is a camel's nose under the tent to ban their shady services that have been implicated in suicide and cheating.* I appreciate you taking the time to lay that out for me.
Yes, I don't think they'd be a moat. It's up in the air, as they're not strongly defined, if they'd net help or hinder catch up, as written I would guess they would help catch up. Slowing the front runners down gives those behind to fast follow at leisure. This is actually a negative in a sense to me because it lets chinese labs catch up relatively and there are world where that is quite bad by my values.
I don't like to make the arguments from incentives on this subject because I don't think they're the right frame of the argument. It's the frame the a16z/accelerationists want to push because then it's a matter of their interests vs anthropic and don't you really care about freedom of speech ect ect? But I don't think the important point here is about who's interests should prevail, even if that's also for contingent circumstantial reasons an argument my side can win against them. Because even if the balanced tipped and from interests alone the labs came out looking worse through this cynical lens I still don't want everyone to die. If entrenching AI control into a handful of companies actually was the only way to keep everyone from dying then we should do that, albeit probably it would be best to nationalize them in that case. I don't think that's the case but I don't want to hinge my defense of regulations on this unstable ground.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link