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 -
Unlike many people, I am definitely on the AI-train: this is a revolutionary technology that will transform the way we live. I do think that people and companies that learn to make use of this technology most effectively will gain compounding benefits over time, just like how it seems households that has a computer 30-40 years ago (either through wealthy parents and/or educated parents) really helped prepare their children for big and better things (although obviously having wealthy and/or educated parents already help a lot too).
If one looks at the AI Index of Ramp (corporate spend management platform), one will find that in monthly AI spend, the top 1% of companies are now hovering close to $10k/month/employee, with a big drop off that follows where top 10% of companies are only spending $800/month/employee, and the median company is only spending $15.70/month/employee. In short, being AI-pilled shows up on the balance sheets. In an interview with Derek Thompson (btw, the other author of Abundance) on his podcast Plain English, Ramp's lead economist Ara Kharazian says: "All of the companies in that top 1% are extremely technically advanced. They are concentrated in the information sector, so software and media or finance or technical services." I do believe these companies are on to something, these are evidentially smart collective of people with clear objectives (increase productivity, reduce cost, maximize profit, etc.)
On a personal level, after 1 year ish of using Claude/Codex as a software engineer, I've noticed many benefits of AI usage (though . I've shared before that it has freed up time, for example, to engage with this forum. I've also been on and know of multiple projects with which would have never even been greenlit if not for AI-use, such as integrating with an external partner on a legacy platform in a computer language no one in my company knows (tbf, it is a C-family language). There has been many complaints about software reliability in the AI-era, with one poster child being GitHub that got bad enough where prominent projects left for supposedly greener pastures. My company did the opposite in that we are migrating from Atlassian's bitbucket to github, I think in part because of what I summed up in an internal message at the time when asked of should we or not: "a migration to GitHub is essentially a bet on AI, because Microsoft/GitHub for sure will be at the frontier of AI features compared to Atlassian/Bitbucket." Regarding the perception of reduced software reliability in the AI-era, I fondly remember early Q2 this year, when the VP of Support and Operations came to my team and the CEO to complain about the increasing amount of outages; I sat down for about a day, counting up number of changes-features-fixes per release and number of incidents caused by each release before presenting to everyone in a meeting my findings: the rate of errors (number of incident / number of changes-features-fixes) actually reduced per release, but because we were releasing so often due to increased cadence and productivity, the raw number of errors increased. The aforementioned VP btw has come to learn to appreciate AI a lot, even if he doesn't quite understand the terminal still.
This brings me to the thread down low between @RandomRanger and @MaiqTheTrue which provoked this chain of thought, bolded mine:
I found a source for the stat btw.
Why is there more stress and suffering now that would lead to the tripling of teenage suicides? Ask the random person on the street, they'll just point everywhere and tell you to look around and say: "everything is so hard now". I think what is so hard about life in the US, and I guess the modern age, is complexity. Life these days are too complext. It's simple enough (heh) to look at computers as a technology that drives societal complexity. Computers makes certain problems extremely simple ("find the 25th, 50th, and 75th percentile using this column of data in Excel"), but then it leads to new problems that are more complex ("now that we know the 25th, 50th, and 75th percentile, what does that mean to us?"). Fifty years ago, it was simple enough to understand your own finances, at most you had a bank account, paper checks for the monthly payments on car and your house, and pay in cash for everything else. Now consumers look at managing multiple credit cards, point rewards and loyalty programs for various companies, managing their own IRA/401K/brokerage, etc. Fifty years ago, you marry the person you met in school or the person you met at work, now gotta navigate dating apps, hookup culture, shifting and varied interpersonal relationship expectations, etc. The following statement from @FCfromSSC points to it well:
And of course btw, complexity is a subsidy for the rich, because only the rich can afford to navigate all the complexities.
So what will AI do to/for us? Personally again, I think AI has greatly simplified my life. There are many questions that I wouldn't even know where to begin to ask, now I just ask. But a colleague has recently confided in me that he thinks of quitting before the year ends, "the rate at which we're going, it's just too fast". I was perplexed at that because I thought AI would have made his life easier like AI did mine. But maybe it wont? what do you think?
I don't know what the data shows, but if Kerouac's On the Road is an accurate picture of what the 1940s/50s were like, it was a time when a young man could arrive in any big city with a thriving social scene, like New York, San Francisco, or Denver, spend a few days job hunting and find a random manual labor job like parking lot attendant or railroad worker, grab a shitty but private apartment (no roommates) somewhere, and spend his free time having fun and/or making art.
So part of me wants to say that a lot of the problem is that housing in dense, fun parts of the country is fucked. And the entry level job market is fucked.
I myself remember seeing my own city, in the last 20 years or so, go from a place where it's hard but reasonable for a person who doesn't have a solid career to pay the rent with random jobs to a place where it's very difficult to do it.
At the same time, modern media (both mainstream and non-mainstream) is constantly exposing people to pictures of stunning material success. Politicians, socialites, celebrities ranging from YouTubers to Hollywood actors. There's kind of a sense in the gestalt that either you hustle your way to being some kind of at least mini-celebrity with a personal brand, smart your way to being a tech/entrepreneur genius, or you're fucked, condemned to the permanent underclass.
On the sexual front, the blackpill has really risen in popularity compared to 20 years ago. 20 years ago a young man who typed "how to get laid" into Google would have found the pick-up artist community, which would tell him that by doing fun adventurous things like approaching women he could gain social skills and have a lot of sex. This was true, by the way. And it still is, despite dating apps. But now with the rise of the blackpill, it's more common for the young man to get sucked into some community that tells him that he is fucked if he doesn't looksmax his way to being a 6'2" male model with a square jaw. The dating advice for men has also become more political. 20 years ago it had more a libertarian, fun, adventurous attitude. Now it's gotten sucked more into the miserable culture war, with both male and female influencers spreading misogyny and misandry, the kind of energy that if one buys into it, makes one wonder why there's even any point in interacting with the opposite sex. Meanwhile women are comparing themselves more than ever to hot female influencers on social media.
The vibes in the country are bad. There's a sense that something big has to change, soon. The overall feel is of living in a declining empire rather than in an ascending one. Overall social optimism is scarce despite some good things happening (for example, homicides are way down compared to say the 1980s though part of this might be that medicine lets more people survive getting shot than in the past). And now with the AI revolution, things appear even scarier. It's nice if hypothetically AI increases social productivity, cures disease, and so on at some point in the future, but that's hard to enjoy if there is fear of becoming unemployed in the near future. There's a general precarious sense that seeking a stable career is a fool's errand and one has to constantly be on one's toes, ready to pivot one's life in an instant, if one wants to be able to adapt.
Third places have gotten scarcer and also people spend more time sitting at home online. Many young people complain about having zero friends. The Internet makes it easier for people to get sucked into a lifestyle where one doesn't meet people in physical reality, to spend many years in that lifestyle and then realize that one is 30 and has no social skills and no off-line social connections.
I think tech also may be starting to reach the natural biological limits of the human organism when it comes to being a cyborg, a tool-user. Beyond a certain level, constant engagement with technology might become corrosive to certain needs that the human organism comes hard-wired with. The typical human organism needs a certain dose of touching grass and socializing off-line in order to stay healthy. The modern software-enabled lifestyle also has a certain constant annoyance factor. One has the sense of living in a dystopian cyberpunk world of giant corporations that are constantly pursuing you with advertisements and pestering you with notifications.
Now, does all this explain the change in suicide rates? I really don't know. That would require some deep analysis to determine. But it's what first comes to mind.
For what it's worth you can still do this in Europe. I did it 3 years ago and went to France and became a chef, it's not always easy but I can usually get jobs for friends who want to do the same (as I did for an ex-programmer friend who lost his job).
It took me a few weeks of sending emails, Instagram messages and one flight to get the first job, and another two weeks of staying over with friends and in hostels to find a place. I did share with housemates but later realised that cheap apartments were available if you searched. I had zero grasp of the language but a couple of thousand in savings from working at a factory to get me started.
I know French bartenders and waitresses who just decide to show up in Paris or Marseille and try and make it there, I know a 20 year old Irish busker who travels across Europe surviving on the money he makes playing guitar on the street, and another Ukrainian guy who escaped the war at 17 and hopped around Europe before making it to France. It seems fairly doable if you're actually willing to be poor for a while.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link