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 -
Frankly I never thought Scott was that impressive a thinker. His writing is just fine. Fifteen-twenty years ago there were a lot of bloggers in Scott's milieu; he would not have become important if he had been writing ten years earlier. His chief value, in fact, was that he attracted a lot of debate from different tribes when the internet was polarizing and becoming closed. In the 2000s there was no shortage of forums where lefties and righties could try to debate; by the 2010s these were all closing down. (I'll add I think gay marriage was actually more important than people credit: post-Obergefell a lot of liberals decided that conservative opinions they had previously countenanced were actually too bigoted to tolerate at all.)
Scott got a massive second-wind by being doxxed extremely uncharitably by the New York Times. I don't think, absent that, he would have had the courage to deliberately become a political lightning rod. There are only so many people who would deliberately choose to be controversial and famous, and Scott doesn't have the personality for it. He probably would have gradually diminished his online personality until he could fade into obscurity. (For contrast, Curtis Yarvin tried this same retirement and was not allowed obscurity by Bay-area radicals. The Last Psychiatrist, who was also doxxed, never polarized into a political partisan figure, and he has basically been allowed to become obscure.)
Scott's diatribe against Pinker (who, let me say sit, is also pretty mediocre and often fairly specious) is about what I'd suspect. There's a certain type of moralizing I find certain personality types drawn to: suppressed righteousness. Scott has never dipped his hand in the cookie jar, so now that he can he pigs out on chocolate chip. (And, again, in fairness to Scott, he has been fairly charitable over many years dealing with all sorts of uncharitable critics.) Imagine what it's like to suppress your most combative tempers and finally have an excuse to indulge them. You just have to believe that AI is an existential risk and now that's more important than charity.
(There's a really big difference between peace achieved by suppressing your violent desires and inner peace with no violent desires to suppress at all. I don't want to make that point too harshly about Scott, it's just something I've been thinking about while writing this all out.)
While I may have issues with Scott as a person I do feel compelled to defend him as both a writer and a thinker.
Regarding Scott as a writer; Unsong is vastly superior to HPMOR both as a work of fiction and as vessel for evangelizing rationalist ideals. Yes, I know it's popular but nobody who isn't already a rationalist takes EY or his self-insert fan-wank seriously. Meanwhile The Witching Hour is easily one of my favorite science fiction shorts of all time and I think that if it had been published in Omni or Amazing Stories back in the day, instead of being posted on some guy's blog in 2013, we would be talking about it as a classic of the genre in the same vein as The Last Question or Burning Chrome.
Regarding Scott as a thinker; to my knowledge he has originated 2 (possibly 3) ideas that have since been adopted into the wider western lexicon, even in spaces populated entirely by Scott's "dark matter people" who have never heard of rationalism or EA you'll find "Moloch" being used as a personification of societal ills and "The Toxoplasma of Rage" cited as a reason why Story X isn't getting more attention. I've also seen multiple priests and theologians with zero ties to this community cite Scott's "An answer to Job" when discussing free will and the question of evil. Not many thinkers who are alive today can claim that level of cultural penetration.
Regarding the rest, I think that the big thing that made LW 1.0 and the weekly discussion threads/link round-ups on SlateStarCodex.com special was that they were spaces where genuine cross tribal communication could occur, but eventually the owners of those spaces decided that they did not want to serve that role, and something valuable was lost.
I find myself thinking about this when ever I see comments about how woke "owns the discourse" or "won the internet" because they didn't, what they did was win here, and because that channel of cross tribal communication was cut there are a lot of people who simply don't realize that.
More options
Context Copy link
The most delicious of moral treats. With infinite negative consequences you can justify anything. Like Yudkowsky's proposal to bomb foreign data centers even if it certainly leads to nuclear warfare. Anchoring your justification on infinity makes any action permissible.
Yudkowsky advocates an international agreement to set the conditions under which data centers would be bombed. That agreement would include China.
That agreement would not include China because they refuse to cooperate on this matter. They're already denouncing America trying to lock in a permanent advantage. If somehow impossibly they signed it, they'd violate it anyways. Then we can go to plan B: nuclear warfare because they cheated.
And worse yet Yudkowsky's example was Russia refusing to abide the agreement. Russia is quite oppositional and has by far the world's largest nuclear arsenal. Yudkowsky made sure to choose the most extreme example and hard commit to the upcoming nuclear war because of a hypothetical Russian data center.
In real life there are international agreements. A few European countries sign an agreement to not use cluster bombs. They don't have any and would have no use for them even if they did. The US and Israel don't sign the agreement. So we have cluster bombs and are not bound in any way to refrain from using them. This is of course denounced as "violating international law". I'm looking forward to China and Russia "violating international law" as understood by EU technocrats and Yudkowsky's proposals. They'll do it and then we can move past any mistaken understanding that we can international treaty our way out of this problem.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Truly blinded by the beauty of thier weapons.
More options
Context Copy link
AI doom isn't actually an infinite negative consequence, but it's orders of magnitude bigger than most other things, so yes, it does justify WWIII if WWIII will stop it.
(Yudkowsky doesn't advocate bombing Chinese datacentres right now, only if the PRC refused to come to an agreement or cheated on the agreement.)
The basilisk is infinite negative consequences for some people in particular. Yudkowsky most of all. I don't take this at seriously, but he does and had multiple online meltdowns over it. In his mind he's being credibly threatened with hell in a way his atheism won't protect from. And he fears for his child's future due to the ruin this will bring. Quite a tough spot to be in.
That's nuclear war with one extra step. They're already pretty mad about America restricting their ability to get more compute and also bypassing the restrictions. They both won't agree and would cheat even if they somehow did.
No. Yudkowsky doesn't believe in Roko's Basilisk. He tried to wipe it (which he's admitted was a mistake, because lol Streisand Effect) because a bunch of other Rats were having meltdowns and going suicidal over it, and he wanted to nip that in the bud.
Yudkowsky is not worried about suffering hell.
The extra step is important. Doing WWIII without trying diplomacy is something even I'd balk at.
Also, the CPC doesn't want to die any more than we do and has at least some idea of the danger.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Believing hell can be visited on earth is the same manner of sin as believing heaven can be visited upon it.
Men who talk themselves into absolute license are evil. There's no exception for "this time it's different". It's always this time.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I don't know why you and the @quiet_NaN are accusing Scott of being uncharitable. His open letter was not uncharitable, it was certainly aggressive and impolite but charitability would imply Scott was making unfair assumptions about Pinker's arguments which he didn't do as far as I can tell. Scott has been vicious in the past plenty of times.
More options
Context Copy link
I don’t know about a thinker, but he is an excellent writer. His Bay Area house party series for instance is truly fantastic. His last piece was far too vitriolic for me with too much sneering. It’s not a sin for someone to be wrong on the Internet after all.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link