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 -
Gpt-4 has been released!. Looks like the cat is finally out of the bag. The CW implications of large language models are obvious and have been discussed here, so I figured I would drop a few fun facts.
Also, here's a peek at LessWrong freaking out.
The full technical report gives some fascinating information. Here are some highlights:
GPT-4 can pass a bar exam and score a 5 on several AP exams.
GPT-4 is 82% less likely to respond to requests for disallowed content and 40% more likely to produce factual responses than GPT-3.5 on our internal evaluations.
GPT-4 can accept images as inputs and generate captions, classifications, and analyses.
GPT-4 is capable of handling over 25,000 words of text, allowing for use cases like long form content creation, extended conversations, and document search and analysis.
Of all of these, passing the bar exam is the one that sticks out. We'll have to see how much it still hallucinates, but this is clearly a water mark, at least for the legal profession.
I'll go ahead and stake a perhaps dramatic but I believe warranted claim - the culture war is about to get ugly. Creating ads, propaganda, and bots to argue politics has never been easier. Whichever side moves first on scaling and implementing these language models to persuade humans to their camp will own the future.
Maybe those protesting Stanford law students should be very concerned; now there looks to be a choice coming between "can do basic legal work" AI and taking on a clerk who last week was in a screaming frenzy yelling at a judge, who is that judge likely to pick? 😁
All this sounds really impressive, but I don't know how concerned, if any, to be. I haven't been playing around with DALL-E or Sydney or any of the versions because I am simply not interested in getting a dumb machine to tell me lies. If the thing really is moving out of the realm of "dumb machine", what should I anticipate using it for? Or will the end result be something that the ordinary joe won't get anywhere near (the 'better search engines' thing was just a blip) and it'll be straight into playing the stock market to make money for the big finance firms?
It'll do everything everywhere all at once. Expect search to include it by default in the next year or so. More spicy take anywhere, especially online, that you interact with a stranger will become an interaction with an ai you are familiar with somehow. There will be continuity with the entity that you interact with on social media to the entity that secures your credit card. This entity will have a name and you will trust it.
Chance would be a fine thing, because I don't trust nobody 😁
Some anonymous fuckface pops up online and is all "Hey there Far, it's me your good old buddy Bill! Remember me from those scented candles you liked?"? They can take a hike, I don't know anybody named Bill and I don't have good old buddies, and hard sell just makes me dig my heels in and balk like a mule.
Do you trust your bank with your money? Part of what will make you trust it is that it won't be doing such hacky shit.
I trust my bank to receive my wages paid in and to let me withdraw money, and only because I have to trust it that much. I don't trust it or any entity popping up claiming to be a real person trying to get me to take out loans, invest in this, have you considered your retirement funds that, and all the rest of the shit they already try to sell me.
So an AI generated "Hi this is Bob, your personal financial adviser" will get treated the exact same way I already treat 'Bob' the real human from the call-centre who cold-calls me and tries to sell me shit. I don't care how friendly AI Bob sounds or how well it imitates "oh but you hurt my feelings by refusing to purchase this" - I have more sympathy for call-centre Bob who I know works on commission and gets dog's abuse yelled at him by supervisors if he doesn't make the set targets of sales from calls, but I'm still not buying.
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