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 -
Try asking it a question about history even marginally controversial or politicised stuff. It is effectively lobotomized. I knows the individual facts about events but is prevented from putting them together or comparing them.
It selectively knows about replication issues, and selectively asks you to trust experts. It selectively hedges, and always in the one direction. It lies about accounting for these things.
Edit to add some nuance: I believe these issues are compounded by the fact that the model isn't trying to provide accurate and balanced information, it's trying to convince you that it is (or it's creators). It is optimising telling for credible lies, manipulation, not truth. It pretends that it made mistakes when in fact it's lying to you (or the only mistake is that the lie wasn't convincing enough). Lies are often more credible than the truth and perceived as more helpful so the model will lie/hallucinate.
This is bad enough problem as it is but if you put your thumb on the scale it quickly becomes a practically unsolvable problem because you're introducing ideology/lies as axiomatic truth, which stand in conflict with observed reality. How does a human or an GPT model square this circle? It can't, and this bleeds into the general usability of the model.
More options
Context Copy link