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’m skeptical, because intelligence includes just knowing what to ask the AI or dealing with whatever it inflicts on you.
It’s true that in an AI dystopia, intelligence won’t stop you from being tortured or gunned down by an AI drone, but this is true today and was true s/drone/barbarian/ millennia ago.
Those who have any opportunity, intelligence still matters. And the only way everyone will have zero opportunity is if AI kills us all. Even if it fully provides for you, there’s still opportunity in self-actualization (which includes things like, figuring out your favorite food) that I doubt ASI can completely provide. And even if it can self-actualize you, even if it can fully simulate and predict your brain, then you still have “intelligence” in every meaningful way, just simulated by the AI (in the same way we could be or not be living in a perfect simulation, but it doesn’t matter because it doesn’t change anything).
Well sure, human intelligence is only obsolete to the extent artificial intelligence is available as a replacement. There are scenarios where it's not that widely available, but I don't think they're very likely (possibly besides AI killing us all). As we transition to a bread-and-circuses model for keeping the useless masses content (which we probably will because it will be cheaper and less risky than other approaches once AI drives the marginal cost of labor down far enough), direct AI access provides good bang-for-the-buck.
In terms of self actualization: people can self-actualize by doing things inefficiently -- say, playing chess without an engine -- but that doesn't make it not-inefficient. When I say 'obsolete' I mean 'devoid of instrumental purpose,' not necessarily any purpose. Though I suppose playing chess well without an engine, while not high-status in any absolute sense, is certainly higher status than playing it well with one, so maybe that is a flaw in my definition or reasoning.
Human intelligence is valuable even with artificial intelligence, unless it's practically omniscient, because intelligence includes the ability to prompt the LLM correctly. Even if it's perfectly aligned, unless it's practically omniscient, it can't know what you truly want, part of self-actualization, you must figure that out on your own.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link