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 -
It is my belief that after the AI takeover, there will be increasingly less human-to-human interaction. This is partially because interacting with AI will be much preferable in every way, but it is also because safetyism will become ever more powerful. Any time two humans interact, there is the potential for someone to be harmed, at least emotionally. With no economic woes and nothing to do, moral busybodies will spend their time interfering with how other people spend their time, until the point where interacting with another human is so morally fraught and alienating that there is no point. Think about it, who would you rather spend time with: an AI who will do whatever you want and be whatever you want, anytime, or a grumpy human on her own schedule who wants to complain about someone who said "hi" to her without her consent? The choice seems obvious to me.
This is a major concern, yes.
One of the worst possible outcomes of ASI/singularity would be everyone plugging into their own private simulated worlds. Yudkowskian doom at the hands of the paperclip maximizers may be preferable. I'm undecided.
Freedom is boring, not to mention aesthetically milquetoast, if not outright ugly in some cases. I have always been opposed to trends towards greater freedom and democratization in the arts - open world video games, audience participation in performance art and installations, and of course AI painting and photo editing recently - I find it all quite distasteful.
Is Tolstoy applicable here? Free men are all alike in their freedom; but to each unfree man we may bestow a most uniquely and ornately crafted set of shackles.
What???
Being able to do whatever you want, all the time, that's roughly as bad as death?
What's a good outcome then, if endless human autonomy is such a terrible fate? Working on a commune all day with 19th century technology? Chattel slavery? A happy-clappy Borg hive like in Foundation's Edge? Low-wage jobs in the modern-day? If you want an aesthetically ugly job, I can describe mine to you.
It depends on what you see as "autonomy". I think a world where everyone is plugged into a simulated world is, if not exactly zero, at least pretty close to zero autonomy. You do not provide for yourself in any meaningful way, you are not capable of substantively changing the material world around you, you are not capable of protecting yourself and instead depend on protection. Of course your examples aren't positive, either. I would like a future where humans are improving their capabilities, try their best to colonize the universe, are meaningful members of society (not just "a" society like an online guild, but "the" society, the one that creates the infrastructure we use, the food we use, etc.) and in a fully general sense are in control of their destiny.
One of the worst possible futures is them becoming glorified pets of safetyist AIs that make sure no harm comes to them and allows them to play in a little golden cage of their own making, one so nice that they don't even consider leaving anyway.
I guess I'm personally resigned to the golden cage but I just want to make sure that I'm not denied my basic needs (esp sex) for some safetyist nonsense. I mean, do you think that a woke feminist or conservative Christian, if they managed to get in control of the AI, would allow us the sexual utopia that we have a right to? This is what I'm afraid of.
But I totally agree with you: humans should be free to, for example, colonize Mars even when its dangerous because the infrastructure isn't there yet. I too worry that safetyism will prevent us from taking risks, being part of the forefront of civilization, exploring the universe.
Who says you have a right? From whence do you derive this right? Explain to me how this is a right akin to the right to life?
It does depend on whether the assertion is being made from the position of "I can't get anyone in the real world, so my only hope is the simulated world where an AI character will pretend to love me" or "I want to have all kinds of sex beyond what is possible now, I am jaded and want infinite stimulation, hyper porn".
While one set of circumstances might be treated more sympathetically than the other, what right are you claiming? You can survive without sex, you can't survive without food, water or air. Maybe we all have a right to $50 million, to be tall and handsome/slender and beautiful and incredibly smart and successful and all the rest of it, but we're not all going to get that. Unless you are pinning your hopes on AI magic producing abundance and a way to get humans into some kind of "better than reality" virtual world where they can all be tall, handsome, successful, smart, rich people with tons of loving and willing partners, you can declaim about your "right to X, Y or Z" all you like, but you're not gonna get it.
The right to sex is not really about sex. It's about protecting normal people from moral busybodies that will ruin our lives by publicly proving that we have a sex drive. Once "so and so said something sexual once" or "so and so had sex (in an unapproved way)" is not a basis for public humiliation or losing your job, our lives will be so much better.
It's interesting to me that asserting a right to sex can a reaction from you. Are you afraid of people getting their needs met? Or is power over other people's sex lives something you need for some reason?
More options
Context Copy link
This is a complete aside: I agree with you that one would be treated more sympathetically than the other, but I'm curious what's your intuition on which one that would be? My intuition points to the latter being the one to receive far more sympathy than the former, which would actually receive close to none and actually attract antipathy.
Haha, this is exactly I don't give a shit about these people's sympathy.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I'm pretty sure this is an assertion of a negative right, derived from (among others), the right to privacy. Ie, if he can make it himself (or convince others to make it for him), what gives you the right to prevent him from doing so?
More options
Context Copy link
I think you're viewing this as "A says they have rights to B's body", whereas parent is viewing it as "C is saying they have the right to prevent what A and B want to do with their bodies."
Exactly, thank you.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Besides mods which alter the creators vision getting banned, as @tikimixoligist shows, mids which adhere to it more closely are forbidden from being distributed by mainstream sites: https://gamebanana.com/mods/430053, https://varishangout.com/index.php?threads/fire-emblem-engage-localization-fix-mod-removed-by-loverslab-gamebanana.1737/
More options
Context Copy link
I suspect sex would be reasonably safe. But we already have a preview of what might happen if your personal utopia does is not what the zeitgeist wants. There was a Rimworld mod called "European Phenotype and Names Only (White Humans)" which modifies a single player game. It's banned.
https://www.eurogamer.net/paradox-pulls-discriminatory-stellaris-mod-that-made-all-humans-white
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